EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



-539750-694055EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Procedures & Practices Relevant to the Administration & Operation of Instruction, Services & Support for Students with Disabilities in the Darien Public SchoolsFor the 2012-13 School YearSue Gamm, Esq.Independent Investigator for the Darien Board of EducationNovember 4, 201300EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Procedures & Practices Relevant to the Administration & Operation of Instruction, Services & Support for Students with Disabilities in the Darien Public SchoolsFor the 2012-13 School YearSue Gamm, Esq.Independent Investigator for the Darien Board of EducationNovember 4, 2013Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" Introduction PAGEREF _Toc245174191 \h 1Background PAGEREF _Toc245174192 \h 2Reflections PAGEREF _Toc245174193 \h 5Acknowledgements PAGEREF _Toc245174194 \h 7Methodology PAGEREF _Toc245174195 \h 8Parent Meetings, Focus Groups & Interviews PAGEREF _Toc245174196 \h 8Documents PAGEREF _Toc245174197 \h 9Parent & Staff Surveys PAGEREF _Toc245174198 \h 9Data PAGEREF _Toc245174199 \h 12Organization of the Executive Summary PAGEREF _Toc245174200 \h 12I. CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS PAGEREF _Toc245174201 \h 14II. OVERALL FINDINGS PAGEREF _Toc245174202 \h 20Legal Basis for Findings PAGEREF _Toc245174203 \h 20Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act & Americans with Disabilities Act PAGEREF _Toc245174204 \h 20Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) PAGEREF _Toc245174205 \h 21Summary of Findings PAGEREF _Toc245174206 \h 24Table of Findings PAGEREF _Toc245174207 \h 251. Unlawful Systemic Procedures/Practices: Identification, Eligibility, Services/Supports PAGEREF _Toc245174208 \h 26Context for Systemic Changes in Procedure & Practice PAGEREF _Toc245174209 \h 26Scientific Research Based Intervention (SRBI) PAGEREF _Toc245174210 \h 27Section 504 Standard Operating Procedures Manual PAGEREF _Toc245174211 \h 30Final & Comprehensive Special Education Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM) PAGEREF _Toc245174212 \h 31Specially Designed Instruction PAGEREF _Toc245174213 \h 31Present Levels of Academic Achievement & Functional Performance PAGEREF _Toc245174214 \h 32Academic versus Nonacademic and Social/Emotional Goals PAGEREF _Toc245174215 \h 33Other Health Impaired – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (OHI-ADHD) PAGEREF _Toc245174216 \h 33Developmental Delay (DD) PAGEREF _Toc245174217 \h 34Adaptive Physical Education (APE) PAGEREF _Toc245174218 \h 34Extended School Year (ESY) PAGEREF _Toc245174219 \h 35Independent Educational Evaluations (IEE) PAGEREF _Toc245174220 \h 36Individualized Services PAGEREF _Toc245174221 \h 37Speech/Language Services PAGEREF _Toc245174222 \h 372. Lack of Meaningful Parental Involvement PAGEREF _Toc245174223 \h 40Unified Front & Pre-PPT Discussions PAGEREF _Toc245174224 \h 40Prescriptive Directives PAGEREF _Toc245174225 \h 42Communication with Parents PAGEREF _Toc245174226 \h 44Therapeutic Learning Center (TLC) PAGEREF _Toc245174227 \h 44Parent Access To and Release of Information PAGEREF _Toc245174228 \h 453. Unlawful Predeterminations PAGEREF _Toc245174229 \h 46Amount of Time for Support to Personnel PAGEREF _Toc245174230 \h 46Paraprofessional Support PAGEREF _Toc245174231 \h 48Changes in Roles of Special Education/Related Services Personnel PAGEREF _Toc245174232 \h 49Individualized Services PAGEREF _Toc245174233 \h 54Outside Consultant Contracts PAGEREF _Toc245174234 \h 554. IEP Changes to Outside PPT/Amendment PAGEREF _Toc245174235 \h 57 Constructive Changes PAGEREF _Toc245174236 \h 59Alignment of PPT Meeting Discussion & IEP PAGEREF _Toc245174237 \h 59Change by Service Design PAGEREF _Toc245174238 \h 60 Actual Changes PAGEREF _Toc245174239 \h 60CSDE Findings PAGEREF _Toc245174240 \h 60Actual Changes: SEDAC Upload & State Audit PAGEREF _Toc245174241 \h 61Notice to Parents PAGEREF _Toc245174242 \h 62Types of Changes Made to Finalized IEP PAGEREF _Toc245174243 \h 63Sufficiency of Edit Checks Available on IEP System PAGEREF _Toc245174244 \h 64IEP System Audit PAGEREF _Toc245174245 \h 65Summary of Actual IEP Changes PAGEREF _Toc245174246 \h 665. Data Reporting PAGEREF _Toc245174247 \h 66SEDAC Reporting PAGEREF _Toc245174248 \h 67Documentation of Excess Costs PAGEREF _Toc245174249 \h 67III. RECOMMENDATIONS PAGEREF _Toc245174250 \h 69Appendices PAGEREF _Toc245174251 \h 76Appendix A. Documents PAGEREF _Toc245174252 \h 76Appendix B. Data Analysis PAGEREF _Toc245174253 \h 78Appendix C. Issues by Documents & State Findings/Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc245174254 \h 79IntroductionIn late July 2013, the Darien Board of Education (Board or BOE) executed a contract with me for the independent review and investigation of allegations that individuals employed by the Darien Public Schools (Darien or DPS) violated laws relevant to the education of students with disabilities during the 2012-13 school year, including the following allegations: Unlawful predeterminations regarding individual student programs.Unlawful development and/or implementation of systemic procedures or practices designed to deprive students of identification or eligibility for special education services and/or educational services or supports. Unlawful development and/or implementation of systematic procedures or practices designed to deprive parents of meaningful participation in the development of individualized education programs (IEPs);Unlawful changes to the IEPs of students outside of the Planning and Placement (PPT)/IEP Team and/or without the signed amendment permitting such changes outside the PPT/IEP Team; Improper or unlawful activity regarding data reported to the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) and/or the United Stated Department of Education; and Any other issue determined by the Investigator and the Board.These allegations are to be considered under both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504). I was also charged with providing the Board with recommendations, if appropriate, to ensure that policies, practices and procedures are implemented in conformance with applicable requirements. My BackgroundPrior to my involvement with Darien, my only awareness of the Town and the special education controversy was based on glances of newspaper articles that were among the many “Google Search” alerts I receive daily on the topic of special education. My engagement was facilitated through a colleague who was aware of my background, and forwarded my contact information to Board representatives.Over the 40+ years of my career, I was a special educator, and served as an attorney and division director for the Office for Civil Rights (U.S. Department of Education), and administrator and chief specialized services officer for the Chicago Public Schools. During the last decade, I used this unique experience to consult with more than 50 school districts and state educational agencies in more than 25 states, and to:Provide regular consultative services to the Council of the Great City Schools, the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative, and the Public Consulting Group.Draft standard operating procedure manuals for the use of a multitiered system of supports (i.e., SRBI) and for procedures/practices relevant to students with disabilities; Provide recommendations for improving instruction and support for students with disabilities by studying districtwide policies, procedures and practices; Testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee’s panel on the potential impact of the then proposed Americans with Disabilities Act amendment on school districts;Provide training at national, state and local special education conferences; andAuthor/co-author periodicals and publications, including: Common Core State Standards and Diverse Urban Students; Using Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (Council of the Great City Schools), and When OCR Comes Calling: An Insider’s Guide to Handling Disability Complaint Investigations and Compliance Reviews (LRP Publications, 2005).I have drawn on this background as I assessed the voluminous and complex set of interrelated qualitative and quantitative data, which is described below. I have sought to provide findings that are fair, comprehensive and based on a careful assessment of this information, and recommendations that are responsive to these findings and appropriate for Darien. I have cited individuals by name only when necessary to promote understanding and accountability. It is my sincere hope that this report will be useful to the Board, its school administration, and the Darien community to more fully understand the actions taken last school year within the context of applicable legal requirements, and to move forward. Background As I learned, the small town of Darien, Connecticut is located in Lower Fairfield County, which is also known as the state’s “Gold Coast.” With a population of about 20,000 people, Darien has the highest proportion of children under the age of 18 years in the state. In August 2011, CNN Money’s List reported the community as being the ninth of “top-earing town” in the country, based on a median family income of $227,195, and median home price of $1,253,800.” Darien has four small parks, two public beaches on Long Island Sound, four country clubs, a hunt club, and two yacht clubs. The Darien Public Schools has a student population that is successful academically, and athletically. Three of the system’s seven schools have received recognition: the high school was listed as being first in the state by US News & World Reports; and Hindley Elementary School and Middlesex Middle School have been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as a Blue Ribbon school. Darien, as all other cities and towns across America, has been impacted by the economic recession and the growing costs of special education. According to a Board of Finance member, concerns were first raised in 2008-09 when the local budgets were financially stressed, and the concerns intensified over the next three years. During the 2010-11 school year, the first year that Dr. Stephen Falcone was superintendent, the district ran a deficit and attention was drawn to a large budget increase for special education and small increase for general education. The superintendent and his then current special education director took several steps the following school year to reduce the escalation of special education service cost. For example, coordinating with other districts on transportation, and better managing the use of paraprofessionals and employing a Board Certified Behavior Analyst and an Assistant Analyst instead of relying on more costly contractual personnel. Badway ReportTo obtain an independent review of Darien’s management of special education services, the Board commissioned a study by Thomas G. Badway, former employee of CSDE’s Bureau of Special Education. In addition to making various recommendations for strengthening the district’s administration and operation in the area of special education, the January 7, 2012 report reflected the following survey of relevant Darien personnel: 53% of 100 respondents reported that IEP services were at least frequently based upon a parent/advocate request rather than another PPT members’ recommendations; 45% felt this was a rare occurrence. 78% of 97 respondents indicated that parental interests were at least frequently the driving factor in making least restrictive environment (LRE) placement decisions; 14% reported they were always the driving factor.51% of 57 respondents indicated that parents always have a right to an independent education evaluation (IEE) at district expense.5% of 101 respondents reported that DPS provides more supplementary aids and services than is necessary to provide student with the opportunity for meaningful benefit.Escalation of CostsWith this background, in March 2012, a finance board member reinforced prior warnings that the upcoming special education budget (2012-13) and future special education budgets “are increasing at an unsustainable rate.” Various school board members also voiced concern that the district’s special education budget exceeded other districts in the DRG A (DPS’s demographic reference group) although the number of students with disabilities was comparable. Requests to the Board for special education funds exceeding the budgeted amount for reasons such as to address the needs of a student newly enrolled in the district or to resolve a parent’s complaint became more challenging after the economy changed. Increasing Negative Perceptions of Special Education Administration & Parent AdvocacyThe combination of rising costs and the Badway report fed the perception by some community members that: special education had become a “run away train;” the special education director was “giving away the farm;” parents were “milking the system;” DPS had a reputation for unlimited special education services; and that these circumstances were encouraging other parents of children with special needs to move to Darien.” It should be noted that while this last perspective was issued as negative comment, the incentive for (prospective) parents to choose to move to Darien for its high performing schools has not been viewed negatively.In addition to the above, numerous persons I interviewed were highly critical of Darien’s special education management during this time, and perceived that parents too aggressively advocated for their children. The following examples were shared: A lack of consistent special education protocol and process. An overreliance on compromise when parents disagreed with service recommendations, and that PPT consensus was overruled in the process. Payment for contractual services that sometimes exceeded authorized amounts. Parents controlling services later included in IEPs, PPT meetings becoming one of form over substance, and parents dictating goals to an individual entering them into the IEP system. Change in Special Education Leadership & Direction for ChangeWhen the special education director gave notice of her intention to retire at the end of the 2011-12 school year, the stage was set for the hiring of a new director to change the “special education culture” of the district. This anticipation was reflected in the email of one finance board member who wrote that the superintendent “…has done a lot to change the mindset and manage [special education] better but the biggest changes have to await the new [special education] administrator. Similarly, the superintendent had conversations with the Board regarding the provision of services in a more efficient and economical manner. Given the context of the 2012-13 school year and the immediate implementation of changes, parent special education leaders have expressed their belief that the Board, through the superintendent, charged the new special education director, Dr. Deirdre Osypuk, with the task of dramatically reducing special education costs. In Dr. Osypuk’s June 24, 2013, letter to CSDE personnel involved in the investigation of the March 20, 2013 complaint, she referred to her understanding of the direction she had received from the BOE and superintendent, and wrote the following:… the Board of Education [BOE] made it very clear to me that "things were out of control" and they wanted change and they wanted it immediately. The BOE asked if I had read the Badway (2010) independent study, which provided insight into some of the issues of the special education department. The Superintendent made it very clear to me that I was hired to put processes and procedures in place, which I did….During my interviews with Board members and the superintendent, none acknowledged using such language to inform Dr. Osypuk of their expectations regarding her administration and operation of special education. The Board president, in particular, emphatically stated that the school system was “never under direction to cut services.” During an interview with me on October 18, 2013, Dr. Osypuk explained that she was expected to tighten up procedures; promote greater consistency across schools; and establish effective management practices. These expectations are common in school districts across the country, and were ones that I operated under during my eight years as the specialized services chief officer for the Chicago Public Schools. Various finance and education board members strongly denied that their primary goal was to reduce costs. Finance Board members expressed that they were more concerned with effective management, including the IEP process, and one emailed that he wanted the school district to use better metrics and measures of performance. During separate interviews, BOE members stressed that they never communicated to the superintendent that services should be denied. They acknowledged an awareness of voices in the community that were upset about the high costs of special education but that concern did not drive Board action. It should be noted that unless one is very clear with the message, concerns of high special education costs and expectations for mitigation of increases in special education could reasonably be interpreted as a mandate to reduce services to reach that end. Given that most special education costs are related to personnel, the challenge is to manage special education effectively and efficiently, in a manner that respects the integrity and mandates of IDEA/state processes, and is cost effective.Current Contentious EnvironmentIn the wake of CSDE’s two sets of findings regarding Darien’s special education procedures and IEP practices during the 2012-13 school year, and the ongoing coverage by Darien media and posted comments from readers, there continues to be a contentious environment in the town. There are those who have communicated their belief that students receiving special education services are draining money away from regular education. In a posted response to a Darien Time’s July 29, 2013 story, a Finance Board Member explained that the Board’s concern . . . was that unexpected spending on Special Ed was crowding out spending on Regular Ed.” A particularly pejorative statement was posted on September 26, 2013, the day after CSDE issued its second report, and stated: “… I do have questions about the integrity of people who pick out and demand an exclusive private school for their children, then contrive to squeeze the Darien taxpayers for all associated expenses including tuition, fees, materials, special resources, livery transportation, tutoring and more. … Much of that interpretation [of Federal law] comes from an organization in Massachusetts which specializes in this kind of money-grubbing to redistribute local tax money from I do have questions about the integrity to a small group seeking a free ride in the first-class cabin. Legal is one thing. Moral is something else. (Emphasis added.) Also, there continues to be a segment of the community that minimizes the import of the state findings, and consider them to be technical rather than substantive. Darien personnel seem to comprise two groups with widely divergent views. In one group there are active supporters of Dr. Osypuk’s directives. They welcomed them as being necessary to change a culture that enabled unreasonable and unnecessary parental demands to flourish. The second group includes personnel that have been critical of and uncomfortable with the directives, and have taken cautious steps to ignore or work around them. Some have sought out a union representative to express concerns about being caught between following the directives and “doing the right thing.” Then there are the parents who have taken aggressive steps to expose Dr. Osypuk’s procedural and practice changes beginning in July 2012. They have asserted that these actions reflect impermissible restrictions of federal/state requirements for the administration and operation of special education, and that insensitive actions taken by some school administrators have made the past year extremely difficult for parents, families, and their children. Some feel betrayed by a Board of Education and a superintendent that did not act soon enough to stem the restrictive practices, and feel vindicated by the same state findings that others have marginalized. ReflectionsAs I reflect on my findings, and two months of intensive involvement with the Darien community and documentation about occurrences over the past year, I offer the following reflections about what happened, what could have happened, and what could happen in the future.As mentioned above, what is not different about Darien is the significant concerns raised about the “unsustainable growth” of special education costs. Especially with the ongoing impact of the nation’s sequestration of funding, which includes IDEA funding, and the threat of future funding cuts if our government does not resolve the matter, it is the unique school district that has fiscal agents who are not raising an alarm, and expecting special education directors to do “more with less.” I have no doubt that Dr. Osypuk was directed to address the high costs of special education in Darien, and that she had her own perceptions (following her initial review of services and IEPs) that the level of services to students exceeded any in her experience. Given that most special education costs are related to personnel, the challenge to special education directors is to manage effectively and efficiently, and in a manner that respects the integrity and mandates of IDEA/state processes. The February 26, 2013 BOE Report and RC-24 Special Education Proposed Budget for 2013-2014 presents some of the best evidence that this challenge was not met. The document, which was produced by both Dr. Pandolfo and Dr. Osypuk, has many examples of cost reductions that are conditioned upon changes in student IEP services that had not yet been considered by PPTs. This document, as well as the various training documents and other directives, mirrored this backward process. In addition, there is ample information to show that Dr. Osypuk had the expressed support and positive reinforcement of her superiors throughout the school year for the actions she had designed and implemented.When done properly, the process would have begun with the development of a standard operating procedure manual (SOPM) to document the lawful parameters for PPT decision-making, and other areas discussed in this report. DPS and non-DPS experts and stakeholders would have contributed to a draft, and its contents would have been based on applicable federal and state guidance, applicable research and literature. In addition, the process would include consideration of progress monitoring expectations; how student growth data is collected and shared with parents; and how personnel would problem-solve instruction for students not showing improvement. Furthermore, the process would have included consideration of on-going and accessible data reports necessary to measure whether students are learning; instruction/services are effective; and costs are commensurate with expectations and student academic and social/emotional outcomes. With legal review, and feedback from parent attorneys as well, the foundation would have been set for staff and parent training, and a universal understanding of clear and comprehensive parameters for PPT decision-making and expected practices In addition, there would have been a foundation for the meaningful involvement of parents and consensus building during PPT meetings. One of the most perplexing circumstances of my review was the failure of either of Dr. Osypuk’s supervisors (Dr. Falcone and Dr. Pandolfo who shared supervision responsibilities of the director) to ask about and/or ensure that BOE counsel was actively involved in the review of the multitude of directives and changes that were occurring at the beginning of the school year and continuing through February. The failure of the superintendent to ensure the involvement of BOE counsel was especially questionable when the newly resigned and respected SLP coordinator in a letter dated September 7, 2012 wrote about her concerns to the superintendent. Many of the procedures and practices referenced in the letter continued throughout the school year, and were the basis of some of the CSDE findings and the findings below. This letter was written with great risk that it would become public, as it has and resulted in a recognition that was not requested, and with a great loss of privacy. While I do not expect Dr. Falcone or any other superintendent to be able to sift through the many concerns expressed in the long detailed letter, and on his own determine which had merit he offered no reasonable explanation for not forwarding it to BOE counsel to investigate, make findings, and give any recommendations for action. The area of special education, which is unlike any other area of education, is based on a complex set of federal and state laws and regulations, guidance, and judicial and hearing officer opinions. It is not an area of expertise that one would expect district superintendents to possess. In a time of changing procedures and practices, the lack of BOE counsel was perhaps the canary in the coal mine. I believe that the 2012-13 school year may have proceeded differently if there had been legal guidance and a process was followed similar to the one described above. This perception was validated by the many DPS individuals with whom I spoke, including upper level district and school administrators, who all indicated that the major lesson learned from the prior school year is that there were too many changes too fast.The hard learned lessons from the 2012-13 school year, however, may enable the Town of Darien to pull together and set forth on a course of excellence for all of its students. Many steps have been taken, including the hiring of the Special Education Ombudsman, Dr. John Verre who comes with a Connecticut background and a long history of special education instruction and administration. In addition, the involvement of Dr. Theresa DeFrancis to re-train staff and the initiation of various administrative procedures (e.g., retired hearing officer Mary H.B. Gelfman and facilitated PPT meetings) to address parent concerns are good actions going forward. I hope that with these findings and the recommendations I have offered, there is a will to put into place measures that not only provide a uniform understanding of special education related efficient and effective processes and practices, and also focuses attention back to teaching and learning, and improved outcomes for all of Darien’s students.AcknowledgementsThere are many individuals who provided me with a substantial amount of assistance during the course of my investigation over the past few months. This investigation involved the coordination of many interview and focus group sessions, parent meetings, web-site postings, and information gathering. First, I commend Betsy Hagerty-Ros, Board Chairperson, and her fellow Board members for their decision to initiate this investigation. My role was truly independent, and I was provided with the resources necessary to execute my charge. It was obvious to me that this initiative was based in a the single goal by the Board to have a comprehensive understanding of the procedures and practices in place during the 2012-13 school year relevant to the identification and education of students with disabilities, and relevant compliance with applicable legal requirements. In this endeavor, the Board’s attorney, Andy Bellach, was an able facilitator and always accessible to answer questions, and provide necessary information. For example, through her efforts, the IEP system audit was undertaken. Nadine Vasil, the superintendent’s secretary, was also instrumental in making sure that individuals and focus groups were well scheduled and everyone had timely notice of their sessions; that my many requests for information during the course of the investigation were facilitated; and that the parent and staff survey were posted and accessible. I also thank the special education secretaries who responded to the bulk of my data requests. I must express a heartfelt thanks to the many Darien staff persons and parents whom I have met over the last three months. Although there has been a high degree of tension and anxiety with respect to the issues I have been reviewing, all individuals have been helpful and generally forthright in responding to my many questions and requests for information. In particular, Katrina O’Connor and Courtney Darby (representing SEAC), along with Kit Savage and Molly Van Wagenen (representing SPEDucation), and attorney Andy Feinstein were steadfast in their communication of issues that they believed merited attention. Likewise, there were many Darien individuals (including the superintendent and assistant superintendent, finance directors, principals/assistant principals, special education administrators and others) and persons outside of the district (including Board of Finance representatives, advocates, former employees, etc.) who shared their personal experiences and insights into the past year. The 216 interview/focus group participants and 541 survey respondents gave me the information necessary to investigate the specified allegations, and left me with the task of sifting through and analyzing complex and intersecting quantitative and qualitative data to prepare this report. I also acknowledge the cooperation of Dr. Osypuk, who went out of her way to meet with me for several hours and always responded to my questions quickly and completely. MethodologyThe findings in this report are based on the following sources: documents provided by DPS and other sources; electronic student data provided by DPS staff and by the district’s IEP system vendor; group and individual interviews; email documents; parent and staff surveys; and legal sources, including federal and state relevant requirements, and guidance documents. DPS, parent, and other sources used for this report are documented separately to protect their privacy. DPS position titles are referenced when necessary to understand the source of procedures and other directives. Parent Meetings, Focus Groups & InterviewsA combination of parent meetings, focus groups and individual interviews were used to receive information from a broad community of about 215 individuals having information relevant to this investigation. Focus GroupsThrough focus groups with individuals selected through a random process, 53 persons were interviewed who represented the following areas: special education teachers (separate groups for elementary, middle, and high school); general education teachers; nurses; psychologists, speech/language pathologists; social workers; and SRBI specialists. Small GroupsTwenty-three people were interviewed in small groups: principals and assistant principals (each at the elementary, middle, and high school levels); parents who filed the CSDE complaint and parent leaders of the Special Education Advisory Committee; and three special education administrators. Parent MeetingsTwo parent meetings were held. The first was held in the morning of my September visit; and the second was held in the evening of my October visit. A total of about 85 parents provided information during these meetings in response to questions posed in a structured conversation. Individual InterviewsIndividual interviews were conducted with DPS and non-DPS people. DPS Roles. Individuals in the following positions or contractual relationships were interviewed: all BOE members; superintendent; assistant superintendent for elementary schools; former and current finance directors; special education administrators; psychologists, speech/language pathologists, special educators, principals, assistant principals, BOE counsel, former contractual coordinator of occupational therapy, several Board of Finance members, and the contractual attorney developing and conducting professional development. In addition, I met with Dr. Osypuk for several hours.Non-DPS Roles. Ten individual interviews were held with persons from the following descriptive groups: former DPS employees, parent advocates, and representatives of CSDE and of the CT Parent Advocacy Center.Documents The investigation included a review of relevant documents produced inside and outside of DPS. It also included a review of email correspondence involving DPS personnel; and correspondence and non-DPS personnel, related documents from multiple sources: DPS and related documents; emails; and electronic student data. Appendix A contains documents that were used in this report.DPS & Related DocumentsMore than 65 documents provided by DPS and collected during the investigation were reviewed, including: documents cited by CSDE in its July 18, 2013 report; documents reviewed by CSDE but not cited specifically; and various additional documents identified during the course of the investigation. Emails & MailTwo types of email correspondence were reviewed: DPS correspondence was reviewed through a structured email search; and parents emailed me directly based on the public communication of my email address. In addition, some parents mailed information to my home.Structured Email Search. A stack of about 1,200 pages of email chains was reviewed based on searches conducted by DPS and BOE counsel. The searches pertained to emails forwarded to CSDE in response to a document demand; and those sent by and received from key DPS current and former staff, administrators and teachers. The process included obtaining, uploading and reviewing the email folders of certain key staff identified by a variety of individuals interviewed, including complainants.?The review centered on searching for email communications relevant to the areas of investigation, including but not limited to, systemic practices and procedures that interfered with the PPT/Section 504 process, meaningful parental participation and/or the requirement for individualized determinations of student programming; and improper data reporting.Parents. More than 20 parents sent email to me directly concerning issues that involved their children; and 9 parents mailed to me additional information. In response to some I initiated email correspondence and/or telephone conversations to have a better understanding of the information. In some cases and with parent consent, BOE council followed up as needed. Parent & Staff Surveys Overall, 540 responses were provided through one of two surveys, one for staff and one for parents. These surveys were developed to receive as much feedback as possible from the two groups of individuals about their 2012-13 school year DPS experiences in the following areas: SRBI (Scientific Research-Based Instruction) for the identification of students with disabilities, Section 504, and special education. The survey was housed on an independent server site and not accessible to DPS personnel. The survey was designed to be anonymous, but individuals could choose to provide their names and contact information. To further alleviate some concerns of privacy, notice was provided that individuals could download and print the survey and mail a completed copy to my home address; four individuals used this method to submit their surveys. StaffA total of 220 DPS general and special education teachers, and related services personnel (including counselors) responded to the survey. At the end of each section, survey respondents were provided the opportunity to describe succinctly other issues not addressed in the survey. Of the 203 staff persons who responded that they taught/supported students at one grade level, the proportion of representation was: 3% preschool; 42% elementary; 22% middle school; and 33% high school. Percent of Staff Respondents by School Level Of the 203 persons who provided relevant information, 188 reported having one of the following positions: general or special educator, psychologist, social worker, nurse, speech/language pathologist, occupational therapist (OT), physical therapist (PT), or related services in general. Of the 188 specific respondents, 64% were general educators, 21% were special educators, and 15% related service provider. When considering the number of DPS personnel in each of these areas, 33% of all general educators responded; 63% of all special educators responded; and 51% of all related services providers responded. These individuals represented an overall staff participation rate of 39%. In addition, 2 counselors responded and 10 did not report a specific position. Percent Each Personnel Area Represents: Total Respondents; and Total DPS Personnel in Each Area Parents A total of 321 responses from parents were received through the survey. Some parents may have responded for more than one child if the parent’s experiences or the circumstances were different for each child. Of the 316 parents who provided relevant information, 6% represented pre-school aged children; and 49% represented children at an elementary school, 17% at the middle school, and 23% at the high school. The remaining 5% had children who were placed at a private school by DPS or because of a settlement agreement with DPS; or by the parent without any DPS involvement. Percent of Parents Representing Children by Grade Level or Private School Of the 232 parents that reported their child was receiving instruction/support pursuant to one of the following areas, 6% identified SRBI; 15% identified 504; 70% identified special education; and 9% reported that a child was in the evaluation process during the 2012-13 school year.Percent of Parents by Type of Instruction/Support Received by Children DataTwo types of data were used to gain a better understanding of various aspects of the investigation: student data and Darien’s IEP system data to reflect any changes made after IEPs were finalized.Student DataStudent data was used to provide information relevant to student demographics; the types of services reflected on individualized education programs (IEPs) for students; etc. (See Appendix B for a full list of data requested.) Data determined to be relevant to specific issues are displayed in charts throughout this report.IEP System DataData from Darien’s IEP system was accessed to produce two reports. Late Finalized IEPs. The first was used as the basis for determining the number of IEPs that were finalized more than five school days from the date of the PPT meeting to develop an IEP. Although the state requirement is that parents receive the IEP within this time frame, the IEP system does not have an on-demand or other routine report with data showing this information. As requested, the IEP system vendor produced a customized report; however, it did not contain any summative data.Changes Subsequent to IEP Finalization. In its report of September 11, 2013, CSDE found that “[Bureau of Special Education] BSE staff confirmed that changes were made to IEPs after the documents were ‘finalized.’ While some changes appear to be allowable technical edits, other changes look to be substantive in nature.” Only DPS special education administrators have passwords that permit changes to be made after IEPs are finalized. During a telephone conversation, BSE staff shared that this finding was based on their review of a sample size of IEPs. To assess in a comprehensive manner the extent to which special education administrators made such changes and the specific type of changes that were made, DPS authorized the district’s electronic IEP vendor to develop a program that would compare for every student receiving special education services all IEP documents completed in 2012-13 to the previous school year’s 2011-12 document, and to identify any changes to the 2012-2013 documents made after finalization. The audit includes the same process of comparison and identification of changes relevant to multiple IEPs finalized for a student in 2012-13 to prior 2012-13 IEPs. This process ensures that all changes could be assessed to determine whether were substantive and the extent of any such changes. The results of this analysis are reported further below. Organization of the Executive SummaryThe Executive Summary has three sections: Chronology of Major EventsOverall Findings RecommendationsThe full report provides more detailed information (including case studies) that support each finding. For clarity, the following terms used throughout this report are defined:Students who have been found eligible to receive special education/related services under IDEA are referred to as students receiving special education services” or students with IEPs. Students receiving services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act only are referred to as students with disabilities. Students receiving special education/related services under an IEP or under a Section 504 plan are referred to as students with special needs.Most of the issues cited by CSDE were written in one of the of the following four documents: July 25, 2012, Special Education Administrator Meeting PowerPoint: used by Dr. Osypuk to organize discussion at a special education administrators’ meeting. (July Administrator Meeting) August 15-16, 2012, A Basic Understanding of IDEA PowerPoint training for all DPS administrators (August IDEA Training)Late August 2012, Department of Special Education and Student Services PowerPoint trainings for administrators, special educators and related services personnel at three sessions for: elementary schools; middle/high schools; and the Early Learning Program. (August Training) Oct. 17, 2012, Building Consistency of Special Education Practices District Wide document was presented at the middle school and high school on October 18 and 19, 2012; emailed to elementary school and ELP staff on November 6, 2012, and presented through subsequent trainings to them between November 5, 2012, and December 20, 2012. (October Building Consistency)I. CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTSTo help understand the overall context of this report, the following is a chronology of major events.June 14, 2012Email from the then-current special education director to the superintendent regarding the upcoming request by the assistant superintendent (elementary) to the Board of Education (BOE) for approval to hire more special education teachers and reduce 10 aides for the 2012-13 school year. In her email, the special education director expresses concern that the assistant superintendent initiated the change without the director’s input and planning to address concerns regarding the reduction’s impact on support for students with very intensive needs at certain times during the school day.July 1, 2012New special education director’s first day of work.July 13, 2012Special education director emails finance director regarding outside occupational therapy (OT) agency and hope to “start scaling” this and other contracts down. July 13, 2012Special education director emails her superiors about the need for more professional development time to stop the “floodgates” of agreeing to IEP services she perceives are beyond the scope of the district’s responsibility.July 25, 2012Special Education Administrator Meeting PowerPoint used by the special education director to organize the presentation and discussion of processes with her three special education directors. The document includes immediate stop-gap measures with a directive to refrain from writing specific costly services/supports in IEPs, and a requirement for discussion with the director prior to recommending specific services. (8 CSDE citations)July-Sept. 2012Emails reflect initial discussions regarding planning to transition students to home schools from the Therapeutic Learning Center (TLC) and the use of the teacher evaluation process to assist with the transition of students from the TLC to home schools. Aug. 7, 2012Special education director directs speech/language pathologist (SLP) coordinator to finish her consultation services for parents who have that understanding “until next PPT” then transfer all SLP service to the building SLP.Aug. 13, 2012Special education director emails to the “Team” that a teacher certified in a research-based multi-sensory reading program would have “consultation” removed from her caseload and no longer support this type of reading instruction because she is not a certified “Reading Specialist.” The teacher is reassigned to a position in a school even though she was specifically named on at least one IEP; because of her reassignment, the teacher could not provide the IEP services to the student. This decision was made outside of the PPT meeting process, without proper notice to the parents, and without a description of the reason(s) for the decision to discontinue the teacher’s services. Aug. 15-16, 2012A Basic Understanding of IDEA PowerPoint presented by special education director to all DPS administrators. (2 CSDE Citations) Aug. 27, 2012DPS coordinator for speech/language pathologists resigns.Late August 2012Department of Special Education and Student Services PowerPoints presented to Early Learning Program (ELP), elementary, middle/high school principals, assistant principals, special educators and related services personnel. (11 CSDE citations and 1 recommendation) During the training sessions the two Autism/Inclusion Specialist first receive notice that their roles would be changing. Early Sept. 2012Special education director advises one of the Autism/Inclusion Specialists that her Student Learning Goal is to remove her service from IEPs and return to a special education teaching position by 2013-14. She is currently working as a DPS full-time substitute special education teacher.Sept. 4, 2012Feeding and Swallowing Team disbands.Sept. 7, 2012Resigned SLP coordinator sends a detailed letter to the superintendent, which in addition to numerous concerns, describes what she perceives to be a course of action taken by the special education director that was unethical and illegal, and decisions based on a “lack of understanding of speech-language pathology, communication disorders and the general nature of children with severe disabilities.” Sept. 19, 2012Special education director emails two administrators at a school and suggests that the movement of students to more inclusive educational settings could be tied to teacher evaluation professional goals. A fellow administrator cautions against this approach as it might be regarded as “non-individualized” for students with disabilities. Sept. 24, 2012Clarifying Questions for Persons Chairing [Planning and Placement Team] Meetings document presented to the Administrative Instructional Leadership Team meeting that addressed numerous issues relating to the PPT/IEP process. (2 CSDE citations and 1 recommendation) The following day it is sent to elementary principals and assistant principals.Oct. 1, 2012Student Learning Goal for the Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) performance evaluation contains evidence for demonstrating success that is linked to a 50% reduction of IEP-required staff support for 10 students. This aspect of the Student Learning Goal is the same for the Board Certified assistant Behavior Analyst (BCaBA). This email follows the Sept. 19th caution from a fellow administrator that this approach might be regarded as “non-individualized” for students with disabilities. Oct. 8, 2012One Autism/Inclusion Specialist resigns.Oct. 8/9, 2012Special education director notifies staff that any future adaptive physical education (APE) evaluations must be discussed first with the relevant special education administrator and the athletic director; the directive is later reaffirmed in the Building Consistency document.Oct. 14, 2012Special education director engages in email discussions with the outside agency that provides occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) services to DPS. The agency’s representative is informed that the director has directed the OTs: 1) to move consultation to an “as needed” basis as IEPs come up for annual review; and 2) to not attend team meetings, except in rare circumstances. This move is expected to reduce the number of OTs from 7 to 6 full time equivalent (FTE) individuals. Oct. 17, 2012Building Consistency of Special Education Practices District Wide document addresses numerous issues regarding the management of PPTs, including the use of a United Front process to resolve school personnel differences prior to PPT team meetings. (CSDE determined that the document further restricts the PPT decision-making authority in five additional areas: extended school year (ESY), occupational therapy (OT), APE, assistive technology (AT), and roles of teachers of students who are hearing impaired (THI) and who are visually impaired (TVI)). The special education director emails the document to special education administrators for review. The document is presented at the middle school on October 18, 2012 and at the high school on October 19, 2012. Oct. 17, 2012Assistant superintendent for elementary emails her intent to observe a student who is receiving APE.Oct. 18, 2012Superintendent, special education director, and Ox Ridge principal present a vision regarding the Therapeutic Learning Center (TLC) in a meeting with parents. Some parents believe the vision reflects the district’s intent to disband the program, and other parents interpret it as an option for their children to attend their home schools.Mid Oct., 2012Email correspondence between special education director and AT consultant about the AT consultant’s Student Learning Goals for performance evaluation. The director suggests that the consultant’s evidence for demonstrating success be linked to a 50% reduction of consultation hours during the year to support her transition to a full-time SLP position the following year. As above, this email follows a fellow administrator’s earlier caution that this approach might be regarded as “non-individualized” for students with disabilities. Oct. 23, 2012Superintendent reaches out to the SPEDucated Parents group to attend their meeting along with other district personnel. A represent of the group notifies him that the meeting is open only to parents of children receiving special education services. Fall, 2012DPS receives about 20 parent requests for student records/documents.Fall 2012Director assigns the AT consultant (DPS employee) to a 0.5 speech/language pathologist (SLP) position. At the time, the AT consultant’s caseload is over 1000 hours for the current IEPs. Nov.6, 2012Building Consistency of Special Education Practices District Wide document, which was referred to above for Oct. 17, 2012, is emailed to elementary special educators and ELP staff, related services personnel, building principals, assistant principals, and the ELP and elementary special education administrators. Due to Hurricane Sandy, the November professional development meeting is cancelled and subsequent trainings are held at each elementary school between November 5th and December 20th. (6 CSDE citations)Fall to WinterParents begin to question the lack of discussion about ESY at PPTs held to develop new, or review current, IEPs. Parents report being told that decisions will not be made until data is collected and reviewed six to eight weeks after spring break. 11/14/12Superintendent and other administrators meet with parents at the Ox Ridge Elementary School to explain that the TLC program was not being eliminated. Late FallParents begin to hear about the “Building Consistency” document and SPEDucated Parents begin to meet to discuss concerns, e.g., staff not participating in PPTs, various IEP issues, nonreceipt of documents, etc. Dr. Falcone indicated that he did not think such a memorandum existed. Jan. 4, 2013SPEDucated Parents ask for a meeting to bring concerns about recent changes in directives of the special education administration to the BOE prior to press coverage. Jan. 4, 2013Board President asks parents for a list of issues that she will forward to the BOE and administration and, after review, determines their next steps. Jan. 13, 2013Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) for any area of Darien's special education procedures and policies to the various employee populations (teachers, aides, related services, and outside consultants). The FOIA request references new policy emails and guidelines that have been disseminated by the special education department. The superintendent later acknowledges failure to provide materials responsive to FOIA request.Feb. 26, 2013Joint memoranda from assistant superintendent (elementary) and special education director to superintendent regarding the measurement and assessment of student and program progress. Data shared included a reduction (from 12% to 7%) in the percentage of students identified in Tiers 2 and 3 in the SRBI process (with no correlating data about growth in student achievement); and as of that date “only a couple of students” identified as LD using SRBI criteria. No evidence references student outcomes that reflect growth in academic and social/emotional outcomes.Early March.SPEDucated Parents submit specific questions to the Board and ask for a response by March 11th. March 20, 2013Initial 25 parents file a complaint with CSDE regarding the “systemic exclusion of parents from special education deliberations concerning their children.” March 29, 2013BOE public statement clarifies several matters, including its commitment to compliance with special education requirements, and assuring that children with disabilities receive appropriate special education services. The statement also reaffirms its “ongoing public responsibility to assure that all expeinditures, including those for special education, are appropritae and cost-effective. …. …[O]ver at least the last five years, Darien has spent an apprciably higher percentage of the school budget on special education services than comparable (DRG A) towns. That disparity has impelled the Superintendent and Adminsitration to review whether appropriate special education services are being provided in the most efficient manner.” April 2, 2013Superintendent emails to parents a 29-paragraph letter, which begins with a statement of disagreement that there have been systematic violations of parental rights under IDEA, and defended the district’s actions. In addition, the superintendent apologizes that the “Consistency Memo” had been inadvertently overlooked when providing FOIA documents to parents. End of April, 2013 DPS provides CSDE with the agency’s request for training materials, Special Education Policy and Procedure Manual, and administration correspondence related to special education policies and procedures (July 1, 2012 to April 16, 2013). At the end of April, the BOE receives information about the questionable training materials.April 25, 2013. Superintendent sends email to staff, reminding them of appropriate PPT decision-making processes, and to not rely on written statements to the contrary in materials presented in trainings provided after July 1, 2012. CSDE reviews and approves the statement to staff. In addition, CSDE instructs the superintendent to issue emails to staff and parents with notice that stakeholders may contact CSDE if stakeholders wish to share information with the agency.April 29, 2013Superintendent emails all Darien families, notifying them that DPS has hired a former CSDE educational consultant and attorney to review all 2012-13 training materials, and that staff should not rely on these materials. June 10, 2013CSDE’s investigation team of four education consultants conducts an onsite visit to Darien. The visit includes: interviews with the superintendent, special education director, three assistant directors, and building-based administrators; a review of IEP records; and a closed meeting with parents of children with disabilities. June 10, 2013CSDE meeting with parents. Various board members attend; some learn about the various specific issues for the first time. Some BOE9 members express concern about prior administrative knowledge and a lack of communication with the Board. Thereafter, CSDE determines that its review will include allegations of changes to IEPs that were neither made at a PPT meeting nor with a valid amendment outside of a PPT meeting. June 12, 2013Special education director is placed on administrative leave. July 18, 2013CSDE issues its first report to DPS with findings of noncompliance. July 30, 2013BOE executes contract with Sue Gamm to investigate 2012-13 DPS procedures and practices and their compliance with relevant legal requirements, and to make recommendations. Sept 25, 2013CSDE issues its second report to DPS with additional findings of noncompliance. Sept. 26, 2013BOE announces details for an expedited complaint process involving Attorney Mary Gelfman that parents can access if they believe they are entitled to individual relief. Attorney Gelfman, DPS officials, Board counsel, parent attorney and Mary Gelfman jointly develop the process.Oct. 15, 2013BOE appoints John Verre as Special Education Ombudsman for 12 months. His responsibilities include acting as a liaison between parent and staff regarding special education matters and making recommendations, as appropriate, to the BOE regarding educational matters.October 22, 2013Superintendent resigns and BOE accepts resignation effective October 22, 2013; assistant superintendent for secondary education named acting superintendent. II. OVERALL FINDINGSThis section describes my overall findings that are based on the detailed description of the relevant areas contained in the full report. To facilitate greater understanding of the five areas of findings, the wording has been modified to a small degree. Given the voluminous amount of detailed information reviewed, there may be small inaccuracies; however, the overall basis of each finding is substantial, comprehensive, and relies on a great many sources. The areas of findings are listed below.Unlawful Systemic Procedures/Practices. Unlawful development/implementation of systemic procedures/ practices designed to deprive or having the effect of depriving students from identification/eligibility or individually designed appropriate services/supports; Unlawful Meaningful Parent Participation. Unlawful development/implementation of systematic procedures/ practices designed to deprive parents of meaningful participation in the development of IEPs;Unlawful Predetermination. Unlawful predeterminations regarding the design of IEPs to meet students’ individualized needs;IEP Changes Outside PPT Meeting/Amendment. Unlawful changes to IEPs outside the PPT meeting process or without authorized amendments; andImproper Data Reporting. Improper/unlawful activity regarding data reported to CSDE and/or the United Stated Department of Education.Legal Basis for FindingsThe findings described below are based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and its companion Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Regulation of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA), and related guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education and Connecticut State Department of Education CSDE.Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act & Americans with Disabilities ActSection 504 and the ADA are additional federal laws that apply to students with disabilities. Unlike IDEA, Section 504 is not a funding statute. Rather, it is a civil rights act that applies to any recipient receiving Federal funds, such as U-46. Section 504 states:No otherwise qualified individual with [disabilities] … shall, solely by reason of [disability], be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.Definition of DisabilityThe ADA and Section 504 are not like the IDEA, which defines disabilities in terms of categorical disability labels. The ADA, as recently amended, and Section 504 have the same criteria for determining disability and services. These two Acts cover: persons who have, have a record of having or are regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. While ADA/Section 504’s regulatory requirements are not as complex and comprehensive as are IDEA’s, they are similar in nature. For example, eligible students are entitled to a free appropriate public education; an evaluation process; an individualized written plan; parental notice and consent; impartial due process hearings, etc. However, while IDEA only covers students with disabilities that require special education services, Section 504/ADA is broader in scope in one major way. Under these acts, any students who meet their criteria, including those who do not need special education services and require only accommodations or supplementary aids and services. For example, a student may have diabetes and not require any specific special education services but may need the periodic attention of a nurse. Such a student would not be covered under IDEA but would be under Section 504 and entitled to a Section 504 plan.Requirements for Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)Section 504’s definition of FAPE, in pertinent part, is the provision of regular/special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet the individual educational needs of students with disabilities as adequately as the needs of students without disabilities are met. There may be circumstances in which local norms are relevant to the decision-making process and they should not be excluded categorically in favor of state or national norms. Unlawful Methods of AdministrationIn addition, Section 504 prohibits the use of methods of administration that have the purpose or effect of substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of a school district’s programs/activities with respect to students with disabilities. Effective methods of administration would include access to a comprehensive special education operating procedures manual, and an accompanying program of professional development for staff and training for parents. In this way, all stakeholders would have the same understanding of relevant standards and expected practices, including those designed to ensure that services are designed and provided in an effective and efficient manner. Many of the issues discussed in this report have their source in the absence of a document and training for staff and parents that meet these parameters.Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)The first two of three IDEA purposes are to ensure that: All students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living; andThe rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected. Right to FAPE IDEA’s requirements for the identification, evaluation and development of FAPE through the IEP process are detailed and complex. In an effort to maximize the likelihood of providing an appropriate education for each student with a disability, the IDEA has established a procedure requiring input from and discussion among both professionals and the parents of the child. The contours of an appropriate education must be decided on a case-by-case basis, in light of an individualized consideration of the unique needs of each eligible student. The IEP is the mechanism used to describe FAPE for each student. The document includes a narrative description of the student and his/her present level of performance accurately to project what (s)he should be able to accomplish during the year. In addition to other specific details, the IEP states the special education, related services, supplementary aids and services (based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable), program modifications; or supports for school personnel to enable the student:To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;To be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; andTo be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children.In addition, the IDEA and state regulations, and federal/state guidelines reference a multitude of requirements for specific purposes, e.g., extended school year, adaptive physical education, feeding and swallowing, independent education evaluations, etc. These requirements are embedded in the findings below or in the full report for each relevant area.Procedural Protections for ParentsOne of IDEA’s core principles pertains to procedural safeguards available to parents, specifically their role in the educational decision-making process for their children. The provision regarding a hearing officer’s authority is illustrative of this high regard. IDEA specifies that a hearing officer’s determination of whether a student received FAPE generally must be based on substantive grounds. However, a hearing officer may find that a student did not receive FAPE if procedural inadequacies significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the parent’s child. Two types of procedural protections that are relevant to these findings pertain to the issue of predetermined IEP decisions; and meaningful participation in educational decision-making.a. Unlawful PredeterminationIDEA authorizes the use of preparatory activities that school district personnel engage in to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting. The seminal case in this area is the 6th Circuit’s Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education. In that case, the Court found that the school district predetermined the results of an IEP meeting. Merely because the Deals were present and spoke at the various IEP meetings, they were not afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the conversation. Participation must be more than a mere form; it must be meaningful. Although school officials are permitted to form opinions and compile reports prior to IEP meetings, that such conduct is only harmless as long as school officials are "willing to listen to the parents." This requires school system representatives to “come to the meeting with suggestions and open minds, not a required course of action.” Additional guidance from judicial and hearing officer decisions is summarized below.Meaningful participation includes parent’s opportunity to discuss proposed IEP with team members who earnestly consider parent’s concerns and also includes parent’s engagement in that discussion. The ultimate question is whether school personnel came to the meetings with an open mind and discussed or considered several options before making a final recommendation. Predetermination amounts to a denial of FAPE where parents are effectively deprived of meaningful participation in the IEP process, the court explained.b. Joint, Informed Decision-Making The IEP meeting serves as a communication vehicle between parents and school personnel, and enables them as equal participants to make joint, informed decisions regarding the:Student’s needs and appropriate goals; Extent to which the child will be involved in the general curriculum and participate in the regular education environment and State and district-wide assessments; and Services needed to support that involvement and participation and to achieve agreed-upon goals. Parents are considered equal partners with school personnel in making these decisions, and the IEP team must consider the parents’ concerns and the information that they provide regarding their child in developing, reviewing, and revising IEPs. In the context of eligibility, the U.S. Department of Education wrote that the team should work toward consensus. However, equal participation does not mean that parents can veto proposals or compel a certain result in an IEP. If the parent disagrees with the school district’s determination, parents must be given prior written notice (PWN) and informed of the right to seek resolution of any disagreement through an impartial due process hearing, or voluntary mediation.IEP Accountability MechanismIEP also provides a mechanism to help ensure accountability in the planning and delivery of services to children with disabilities. It does so by:Setting forth in writing a commitment of resources necessary to enable a student with disabilities to receive needed special education and related services;Serving as a management tool that is used to ensure that each student is provided special education and related services appropriate to the child's special learning needs; Serving as a compliance/monitoring document which may be used to determine whether a student is actually receiving the free appropriate public education agreed to by the parents and the school; andServing as an evaluation device for use in determining the extent of the student's progress toward meeting projected outcomes. Summary of FindingsThe five areas of findings have an interactive impact. If there are unlawful systemic procedures/practices in relevant areas, that circumstance creates a condition for unlawful predetermination of PPT decisions and limits meaningful parent participation in PPT meetings. Unlawful predeterminations limit also meaningful parent participation, and the absence of meaningful parent participation leads to unlawful predeterminations. Unlawful systemic procedures/practices lead to improper data reporting, and to changes outside of the PPT and/or IEP amendment process. The schematic illustration below reflects this interaction. Schematic Illustration of Interactive Nature of FindingsThe table on the following page displays the areas of review that formed the basis for each finding. Table of Findings1. Unlawful Systemic Procedures & Practices2. Unlawful Meaningful Parent Participation3. Unlawful PredeterminationsSRBI: inadequate procedures/ practices to support appropriate IDEA/504 referralNo Section 504 standard operating procedures In absence of a special education operating procedural manual with legal review, overly restrictive criteria or incorrect procedures & practices: Specially designed instruction inaccurately definedPresent levels of academic achievement & functional performance (aka PLEPs) Academic versus nonacademic & social/ emotional goals Other health impaired – attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (OHI-ADHD)Developmental delay (DD)Adaptive physical education (APE)Extended school year (ESY)Independent educational evaluations (IEEs)Individualized servicesSpeech/language servicesDiscipline: inadequate training of procedural safeguardsUnited front: limitation of open & meaningful discussionLittle if any focus on consensus building Quiet PPT meetingsDPS staff training insufficient focus on encouraging consensusParent training absentParent/staff perceptions differ significantlyDiscussion overly restricted“What to say when” & “More-is-better” decision-making Immediate stop gap measuresPre-recommendation discussionsAttendance at PPT meetingsPrior notice of attorneys & outside evaluationsNumber of PPT meetingsLate IEPs given to parents subsequent to PPT meetingsCommunication with parents (e.g., logs, team meetings) reduced or stoppedTherapeutic learning center (TLC) inadequate communicationParent access to records & release of information inadequate“As needed” support for personnelAssistive technology consultationOccupational therapy consultationParaprofessional support for personnelChange in RolesAssistive technology coordinatorAutism inclusion specialist role changeFeeding/swallowing team endSpeech/language coordinator role changeIndividual ServicesOutside consultant contracts eliminated4. IEP Changes Outside PPT/Amendment 5. Improper Data Reporting to CSDE &/or USDEConstructive ChangesAlignment of PPT meeting discussion & IEPChange by service designCSDE FindingsActual ChangesSEDAC upload & state auditNotice to parentsTypes of changes made to finalized IEPSufficiency of edit checks on IEP systemIEP system auditSEDAC reportingDocumentation of excess costs1. Unlawful Systemic Procedures/Practices: Identification, Eligibility, Services/SupportsBased on the entirety of the information described below, systemic procedures and practices have been developed and implemented, which preclude the appropriate identification and determination of eligibility of students for Section 504 or IDEA services, and the provision of individually designed appropriate services and supports.Context for Systemic Changes in Procedure & PracticeSchool year 2012-13 was a year of quick and dramatic changes in special education procedures and practices. These changes occurred within the context of Dr. Osypuk’s understanding of the expectations and her own investigation that supported a need for clearer directions and expectations for special education practices. The following chronology reflects the speed and comprehensiveness of change.July 1st. Dr. Osypuk’s first day serving as DPS’s director of special education was July 1, 2013. According to the director, she initially interviewed her superiors, her assistant directors and secretaries, principals, and staff and parents who were available. She also reported that she spent the first two months trying to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the special education department, and reviewed over 100 individualized education plans (IEPs). July 13th. By the 13th day of her tenure, the director had determined that IEPs contained “excessive services” in IEPs. By email that day to Dr. Judith Pandolfo, assistant superintendent for elementary schools, the director asked for time for training with administrators and special education/related services personnel prior to school so that we can stop the ‘floodgates’ of agreeing to things in an IEP that are beyond the scope of our responsibility. Much of this school year will be honoring those excessive services we have already agreed to in an IEP, but I want to make sure that going forward we are only writing into IEPs what is appropriate.July 25th. By her July 25th meeting with special education administrators, Dr. Osypuk had identified twelve specific areas of concern, including: individualized special education/related services instruction; in-home services; before/after school services; use of internal/external consultants; individual aides; extensive testing; team and parent meetings; increasing staff; placement of students outside of DPS schools; DPS recommended outside evaluations; use of specific academic/social programs. Most of these concerns formed the basis of future written special education procedures. In addition, she identified past practices that were perceived to enable “a small group of parents … to make decisions outside of the PPT meeting.” To address these and other concerns, Dr. Osypuk initiated a series of directives.July – March. Between the end of July 2012 and March 2013, the director addressed these and other concerns through written information that was provided to administrators, special educators and related services personnel through a series of about 25 documents and several professional development sessions. In addition, by the middle of August, Dr. Osypuk had changed the job parameters of the district’s long-time speech/language pathologist and reading specialist; and by the end of August had changed the job parameters of DPS’s two autism/inclusion specialists. The systemic procedures and practices that were developed and implemented, which support the first finding, are summarized below. Scientific Research Based Intervention (SRBI)Various individuals expressed concerns about the SRBI process, including the amount of time students receive support through SRBI and whether they are referred for Section 504 of special education evaluations in a timely manner. DPS does not have written finalized procedures for SRBI, which would include expected practices and their implementation with fidelity for areas such as the following: collection and reporting of progress; communication of meaningful student progress data with parents; and considerations for Section 504 or special education evaluations. In the absence of these and other practices, parents perceive their children are “lingering” in the SRBI process. As stated by one elementary school principal, “parents want information.” This is especially true when parents believe their children are struggling in school, and they want to ensure they are making progress. A parent is much more likely to be assured that school personnel are attentive to his/her children’s needs when provided with data that demonstrate progress; that meaningful problem-solving is occurring; and that interventions and supports are in place, changed, or added to support teaching and learning. Staff TrainingWhen reviewing the results of the staff survey, the statement that received the highest rate of (strong) disagreement concerned SRBI and the adequacy of training about the process, including monitoring student progress, providing interventions, providing parents information about their child's progress, determining need for more intensive/different interventions, referrals for 504 or special education evaluation, etc. As illustrated on the following chart, 67 staff persons, representing 55% of all respondents, expressed (strong) disagreement with the referenced statement.Staff Survey: Effective SRBI TrainingProgress Monitoring & Information to ParentsAccording to Dr. Pandolfo, a student’s SRBI specialist and general educator determine the manner in which student progress is shared with parents, and there is no specified reporting system; rather it is viewed as an “ongoing dialogue.” She explained that communication with parents in Darien is so common that it does not need to be specified. The draft SRBI Handbook (SRBI Handbook) states that school personnel are to inform parents if their children are identified through universal assessment as not meeting benchmarks: the steps being taken to “bring students back up to grade level performance;” and that someone other than the classroom teacher will be working with their child. The form and content of communication depends on the type of support. The following instructions are specified with respect to sharing information with parents:In discussions and other communications with to parents, refrain from identifying students by Tier. If they want more information about the support, simply describe the arrangements that are in place, e.g. three times a week in small group instruction in the classroom by the specialist in addition to regular instruction.According to the SRBI handbook, a form letter is provided for the purpose of sharing “very general information” regarding the progress students made through SRBI. This information reflects whether the student: made progress and achieved targeted benchmarks in a specified area; or has made some progress towards targeted benchmarks. Based on these results, the parent is notified that the student: no longer requires additional support; or will continue to receive support and additional instruction from a designated instruction specialist. According to interviewees, e-copies of the forms are posted on DPS’s wiki. The provision of such general information to parents is counter to advice provided by CSDE:During progress monitoring, educators should present data to families in both graphic and numerical formats they can understand easily and should elicit families’ views about the student’s progress or lack thereof. Data supplied to families should also reference expected grade level benchmarks so parents may better understand where their child’s skills are in relation to grade- level expectations. Families should feel they are part of, not only the recipients of, the monitoring of a student’s rmation provided by school personnel and parents during interviews and meetings revealed that schools have inconsistent practices regarding communication about a student’s involvement in SRBI and information about that involvement. Although there is an internal tracking form, there is no districtwide expectation that its contents be shared with parents. Generally, a student’s lack of “progress” is considered to be a trigger for a Section 504 or special education referral. However, neither the SRBI Handbook nor other written information provides guidance for such important issues as: sufficient progress; any problem-solving methodology for reviewing progress; and reasonable applicable time frames. Parent/Staff SurveySeveral statements in the parent/staff survey concerned the area of student progress under SRBI. In response to a statement regarding clear guidance, 58 (51%) staff members with an opinion (strongly) disagreed they received guidance to consider whether a student is making adequate progress within a reasonable period of time. With respect to a statement regarding the provision of notice to parents about student progress, 11 (46%) parents and 32 (29%) staff members reported (strong) disagreement that notice was received or provided, respectively.Parent/Staff Survey: Adequate Student Progress & Notice to ParentsUse of SRBI & Relationship to LD EligibilityA BOE Report dated February 2013, which was prepared jointly by Drs. Pandolfo and Osypuk, showed that the implementation of learner-centered models in literacy and math resulted in a reduction in the number of students identified for SRBI Tiers 2 and 3; and “… only a couple of students have been identified as [learning disability] LD using SRBI criteria.” According to public data reported by the Darien Times, the reported rate of K-5 students receiving SRBI support in 2012-13 (11%) was the same as the prior school year’s rate; it was a little smaller than the 2009-10 (12%) rate; and much higher than the 2011-12 rate (7%). Furthermore, except for a high 53% of exiting students in 2011-12, the rate of students exiting in 2012-13 (40%) was about the same as rates from the other previous school years. Finally, the rate of students identified with LD has been the same (1%) for the last three school years; only in 2009-10 was the percentage a higher 2%.Percent of K-5 Students Receiving SRBI Support, Exiting SRBI, and Identified as LD by Last Four School YearsParent/Staff SurveyA large percentage of parents and staff respondents (strongly) disagreed with variations of several statements relating to the consideration of referral of a student receiving SRBI services for Section 504 or special education evaluations. 12 (67%) parents and 43 (36%) staff did not believe they were able to refer a student regardless of his/her SRBI status;60 (53%) staff disagreed they received information that provided guidelines for implementing SRBI, including circumstances warranting referrals; and10 (77%) parents with children in the SRBI process believed their child should have been referred for an evaluation.Parent/Staff Survey: Section 504/Special Education Referrals for Students Receiving SRBI ServicesSection 504 Standard Operating Procedures ManualIn Darien, the assistant principals manage the Section 504 process. At the beginning of the 2012-13 school year, Dr. Osypuk offered to provide training on Section 504, and she developed the PowerPoint, Section 504 of the ADA Amendments Act (effective 7/1/09): As it Pertains to the Schools. In addition, there is a useful Section 504 Checklist; however, the document is not inclusive of all relevant information pertaining to Section 504 requirements. The district does not have a single document that contains uniform standards, practices, forms and other information necessary for the effective administration and operation of Section 504, including the obligations of school personnel to initiate a referral for a student suspected of having a disability under the Act. In September 2012, Dr. Osypuk asked the superintendent to put the issue of Section 504 on the cabinet agenda because of her belief that there are students receiving special education services who should really “be 504.” Of note is that no concern was expressed that there may be students not receiving any services who may be eligible for Section 504 services. During a meeting with parents, 22 indicated that services under Section 504 were discussed for their children only if the parent initiated the conversation. Based on the responses to the parent/staff survey, 19 parents (57%) and 12 (21%) staff respondents with an opinion (strongly) disagreed with the statement that Section 504 eligibility is not conditioned on a child’s medical diagnosis or outside medical documentation.As in the area of special education, to have effective administration of Section 504 provisions it is necessary to have a Section 504 SOPM that is publicly accessible, and companion training for staff and parents. Without a comprehensive single document, staff and parents do not have a common understanding of relevant requirements, including obligations for Section 504 child find in general and in relationship to SRBI; relevant forms; and implementation expectations. Final & Comprehensive Special Education Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM)Darien did not have a final and comprehensive special education SOPM in place during the 2012-13 school year that contained all relevant requirements and expectations for efficient and effective practices. In its absence, there was no single document reflecting all of the procedures and processes necessary for the consistent administration and operation of special education. Instead, there was a series of separate PowerPoint trainings and handouts, and a series of separate documents that collectively contained a myriad of new procedures that were released over several months, and were sometimes contradictory. Focus group participants reported that it was difficult to keep track of all of the requirements because they were issued in separate documents that each contained many requirements. Furthermore, there were no organized sessions for training at which the many changes could be shared and explained. In the March 22, 2011 approved BOE minutes, a question was asked about why it is taking so long to complete the special education handbook. Dr. Pandolfo reported that the handbook was available in an electronic format and on a disc.The effective administration of special education is based in a highly accessible and comprehensive special education operating procedures manual, which receives legal review and feedback from representative stakeholders; and an accompanying program of professional development for staff, and training for parents. These ingredients enable all stakeholders to have the same understanding of relevant standards and expected practices, including those designed to ensure that services are designed and provided in an effective and efficient manner. Many of the issues discussed below, and further in this report, are rooted in the absence of a manual, and training meeting these parameters. Specially Designed InstructionCSDE’s July 18, 2013 letter of findings cited the district’s use of the term “specialized instruction” as incomplete and inconsistent with the IDEA’s definition. This citation applied to the PowerPoint documents used for training administrators and staff in August. In the February 26, 2013 BOE Report, reference was made to this training, and that “504 Plans are increasing as IEPs are decreasing due to a better understanding of the terms accommodations, modifications and specialized instruction.” DPS’s slide, which describes “specialized instruction” in the training PowerPoints, refers to “[c]ontent that is modified (standards are lowered).” Specially designed instruction under IDEA is inclusive of content that is not modified; its goal is to provide “access” to content based on the general curriculum so that students have an opportunity to be proficient on regular statewide assessments, with or without IEP-specified accommodations. The CSDE letter did not reference another problematic slide in the August training documents that asks “What Does Disability Mean?” by asking the question: “Would this child look disabled in another district?” This slide raises several concerns. Foremost, is the reference to the child and whether (s)he would “look disabled” in another district. Perhaps not intended, the language can be viewed as pejorative by projecting the thought that disability has a certain “look.” Whatever the intent, the determination of special education eligibility involves a complex decision-making process that is based on multidimensional information. Furthermore, the posed question does not take into consideration the definition of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under Section 504, which states in pertinent part that an appropriate education is the provision of regular/special education and related aids/services that are designed to meet the individual educational needs of students with disabilities as adequately as the needs of students without disabilities are met. There are circumstances in which local norms may be relevant to the decision-making process and should not be excluded categorically. Specially designed instruction represents an essential core component of IDEA. A comprehensive special education SOPM would include the correct definition and application of specially designed instruction. The SOPM and related training need to be designed to enable staff (and parents) to have a working understanding of the term’s usage and its application to the decision-making process for determining student’s eligibility for special education.Present Levels of Academic Achievement & Functional PerformanceAs part of its document submission to CSDE, Dr. Osypuk provided a Sample IEP that included examples for the consistent entry of information. CSDE noted that information reflecting a student’s Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (aka Present Levels of Educational Performance, PLEP) should be revised to be less specific and aligned with guidance provided in the agency’s document, IEP Manual and Forms. This comment refers to examples in the Sample IEP that contain only quantitative test scores under the heading, Concerns/Needs. For example, under Academic/Cognitive Language Arts, the sample illustrates the following data: <78, z-scores <1,5l T-scores <35 or >65. Based on guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, PLEPs include test scores only if they are pertinent; and when such scores are noted, the significance of each score should be explained. The needs must be set forth in the IEP so that everyone working with the child knows the level at which the child is functioning, and can develop an IEP that will provide the child with an appropriate education. CSDE’s IEP manual provides similar guidance:The statements written in [the Concerns/Needs] column should clearly articulate what the student currently knows and can do in relationship to his/her involvement and progress in general curriculum or appropriate preschool activities. … If the student’s present levels of performance represent a discrepancy between the age/grade level expectation and performance, the PPT should provide details in this column. If the student’s present level of performance includes the use of supplemental aids and services, the PPT can record that information. The use of standardized test scores to reflect PLEP needs/concerns in isolation is meaningless to most school personnel and parents. They promote little, if any, understanding about concerns regarding a student’s performance and his/her needs, and they contribute little to the development of meaningful measurable annual goals and objectives.Academic versus Nonacademic and Social/Emotional GoalsSeveral email chains concerned issues relating to a student’s continuing eligibility for special education when the IEP contains no academic goals. In one exchange, goals/objectives for study skills was not deemed to be sufficiently “academic.” Also, special educators have been directed not to implement social/emotional goals. Social Skills. There is a body of research that supports the value of teaching students strategies for: acquiring information from the printed word; organizing and memorizing information; solving math problems; and expressing information in writing (including on tests). Learning strategy instruction focuses on enabling students to be more active learners by teaching them how to learn and how to use what they have learned to solve problems and be successful. Neither IDEA nor state regulations exclude study skills as an area of need from consideration as an appropriate special education goal for a student with PLEPs that reflect this need. Implementation of Social/Emotional Goals. Typically, school districts enable all personnel with appropriate qualifications to support a student in the area of social emotional learning, using an inclusive rather than exclusive approach. This broader approach recognizes that social/emotional issues impact many areas of a student’s performance and that an integrated and coordinated methodology is more likely to support a student in his/her different environments and learning situations. Different qualified personnel may be designated as “responsible staff” and/or “service implementer,” depending on the student and personnel schedules/caseloads, to provide instruction/interventions and monitor student progress. It should be clear that these roles do not exclude the involvement of any PPT member when developing goals/objectives. Other Health Impaired – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (OHI-ADHD)CSDE’s July 19, 2013 letter of findings cites Darien for the overly specific January 15, 2013 Worksheet for Eligibility Under OHI-ADHD (ADHD Worksheet), and its inconsistency with IDEA eligibility determination procedures. The ADHD Worksheet sets forth “Cutoff Scores” for assessing deficits in the following areas: inattention, hyperactivity-impulsivity, and combined types that are applied to teacher and parent surveys. Although Dr. Osypuk intended to establish common practice for determining OHI-ADHD eligibility, the process produced a stand-alone document that referred to a rating scale and cutoff scores as the primary criteria for determining eligibility. As clearly stated in the CSDE Report on ADHD, “[r]ating scales … should not be used as the sole assessment instrument for determining special education eligibility, or for diagnosing ADHD.” This issue could have been avoided had the director first collaborated with knowledgeable staff to develop the parameters of a comprehensive document, which reflected information from the CSDE Report on ADHD and other best practice documents, and had she obtained legal review. Developmental Delay (DD)Another worksheet cited by CSDE as being overly specific and inconsistent with IDEA eligibility determination requirements concerned the PPT Report of Eligibility for Special Education due to DD (DD Report of Eligibility). This document, which was dated February 21, 2013, set forth standard deviation specific cutoff scores for various combinations of five areas (physical, communication, social/emotional, adaptive and cognitive). According to the document, a child needed to meet these criteria to be considered for special education because of a developmental delay (DD). According to Dr. Osypuk, this document was never implemented in Darien during the 2012-13 school year. The process for developing another DD worksheet, DD Eligibility Worksheet, began with a document provided by the director from her prior school district. Subsequently, the Early Learning Program (ELP) administrator and a school psychologist relied on a CSDE pamphlet to develop the DD Eligibility Worksheet, which the director then edited, removing the critical element of clinical judgment. ELP personnel emphasized that “in practice we did what we should” and continued to use clinical judgment to identify students with DD. Dr. Osypuk recognized that although the district’s “practice considers rule out factors and the use of professional judgment, it would be prudent to add these to the worksheet to ensure alignment among written documentation.”ELP representatives have concerns about the use of categorical disability areas for young children and indicate that there are advantages to the use of the broad noncategorical term, DD. In all cases, the evaluation process is to produce an understanding of the child that is sufficiently comprehensive for the PPT to describe his/her present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. From this platform, the team establishes goals/objectives, special education/related services, and supplementary aids/services. There is no part of this process that is dependent on a child having a particular categorical disability label. Reportedly, ELP personnel resisted practice that would exclude the consideration of clinical judgment for the determination of DD eligibility. However, fewer children last year were identified in the area of DD than in the prior year; and more were identified with disabilities in three other specific areas. Although this may have not been the preference of personnel, there is no reason to believe that decisions were not based on appropriate criteria. Adaptive Physical Education (APE)CSDE’s letter of findings cited the district’s November 8, 2012, Building Consistency document for its two requirements pertaining to APE: 1) that this specialized instruction should rarely be considered for any student who does not qualify for physical therapy (PT); and 2) if the student qualifies for PT or is an exceptional case and is being considered for APE, there must be a prior discussion with a special education administrator. In addition, the letter referenced the draft APE Eligibility Criteria Under the IDEA, which sets standard deviation cutoff scores for eligibility, as overly specific and inconsistent with IDEA eligibility determination procedures. The agency required for the first directive and recommended for the second that they be revised based on CSDE’s Guidelines for APE document.Through separate communication occurring during this time with Dr. Pandolfo about Student A who as being considered for APE, personnel informed the assistant superintendent of Student B who was also receiving APE. On October 17, 2012, Dr. Pandolfo emailed her intent to observe Student B that morning and another student the following month. This intended observation raises the question of Darien’s assessment and observation process and relevant requirements for parental consent. Based on the publication of CSDE’s findings, Student B’s parent wrote to share concerns that a February 12, 2013 PPT improperly recommended to eliminate APE for her child. Given CSDE’s findings about APE, the parent expressed concern that the APE service may have been discontinued improperly.Although the PT precondition for APE was lifted at the end of January, there was clear evidence that its intent caused at least some students not to receive this specially designed instruction. Dr. Osypuk apologized for the confusion and misunderstanding this directive caused; however, there is no indication that any effort was taken to identify students potentially impacted by the improper limitation. (Based on district data, 24 students received APE in 2010-11, compared to 6 in 2011-12 and 4 in 2012-13.) Furthermore, the director’s January 29th email to staff clarified the change, but conditioned by stating there may be some cases where a student does not need PT but may still be eligible for APE. This characterization continues to limit APE absent any additional information or clarification. Although in an email of October 9th, Dr. Osypuk referred to a committee that was developing eligibility criteria, assessments, and professional development, the committee was still meeting according to the director’s August 2, 2013 letter to Dr. Falcone. Extended School Year (ESY)Dr. Osypuk provided the following background regarding the relatively large proportion of Darien students receiving ESY services during the summer of 2012. An analysis of the district’s ESY population indicated that there had been a steady and significant growth in the number of students qualifying over the past few years. The most recent data from ESY 2012 was that approximately 42% of all identified students qualified for special education. These numbers appeared to be an outlier in comparison to other districts and thus, I felt it was my responsibility to question whether the ESY criteria were being applied. In speaking with various staff and administrators the answer seemed to be that occasionally criteria were applied, but very inconsistently across buildings. They also noted that parental pressure seemed to drive the decision-making at PPT meetings. Dr. Osypuk’s perception that a much higher percentage of DPS students were found in the past to be eligible for ESY compared to other school districts is consistent with my experience and with the statement in CSDE’s ESY Topical Brief, which refers to ESY services as the exception and not the rule for students with IEPs. Moreover, there were many supporting views that ESY standards had not been implemented in the past. However, the process that was used to promote the use of appropriate criteria failed to ensure that throughout the district staff members understood that factors other than regression/recoupment were “in play” for consideration; and that a meaningful and orderly process was in place for the following: The preparation of a comprehensive guidance document that would be based on CSDE’s ESY Tropical Brief, and would clearly articulate the application of regression/recoupment, nonregression, and special circumstance factors. The use of appropriate time frames determining ESY eligibility to ensure they would be completed earlier in the year than at or soon before the end of the school year, and in sufficient time to enable a parent to address any concerns through a dispute resolution munication of the new process with both school staff and parents, allowing for ample training and the distribution of written information to have a common understanding of the criteria and an opportunity to answer questions. An ESY service configuration that met the requirements of IDEA, which prohibits any unilateral limitation of the type, amount or duration of services. Legal review to ensure the ESY criteria complies with applicable requirements.Independent Educational Evaluations (IEE)The area of IEEs was included in three documents that addressed many different procedures, two documents focusing on IEE procedures, and one draft document focusing on IEE procedures. CSDE’s July 18th letter made findings of noncompliance with respect to three of these documents, and one recommendation for a fourth document. Darien has not had compliant requirements to guide personnel’s timely and appropriate review of or decisions relating to: a parent’s IEE request; IEE evaluations and their costs; and review of all IEEs. The area of IEE has specific IDEA requirements, and U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Program (OSEP) guidance, which is customarily followed by school districts. Although Dr. Osypuk made an effort to establish IEE criteria and procedures in 2012-13, there is no evidence that final procedures having legal review were disseminated to both staff and parents. In the absence of this information, there was a substantial amount of concern expressed by parents with respect to IEEs and their review by PPTs.Furthermore, Dr. Osypuk directed her secretary to stop documenting IEE authorizations by source, i.e., district or parent request. The chart below shows the reduction of IEEs in number and cost in 2012-13 from 2011-12.2011-12 School Year. The cost of all outside evaluations was $109,415; 54.8% were parent-initiated IEEs. Of the 43 evaluations, 37% were parent-initiated IEEs.2012-14 School Year. The cost of all outside evaluations was $65,060; and 26 evaluations were approved. Without relevant documentation, it is not possible to discern the extent to which the district’s 2012-13 reduced usage of outside evaluations was based on parent or district initiated requests. Outside Evaluations: Cost & Number for 2011-12 & 2011-13 IEEDistrict RequestTotal2011-12Cost$60,000$49,415$109,415Number1627432012-13CostNot Available$65,060Number26Individualized ServicesThree documents were developed at the beginning of the school year, and the Sample IEP, contained incorrect standards for the consideration of a student’s need for individualize services, i.e., 1:1 services.Prior Discussion with Director. One of CSDE’s July 18th citations concerned the July 25, 2012 Special Education Administrators PowerPoint concerning one of the “Immediate Stop-Gap Measures” to discuss with the director a recommendation for 1:1 instruction prior to a PPT meeting; a similar directive in the August Training PowerPoint pertained to the need to discuss with an administrator a potential recommendation for 1:1 instruction prior to a PPT meeting. Prior Discussion with Administrator. The September 24, 2012 Clarifying Questions document and attached table asks school personnel to ask in response to a parent’s request for 1:1 services: “How is delivering 1:1 services going to provide the student the opportunity to develop independence and socialization skills?” Neither the document nor the table includes consideration of data regarding any benefits of 1:1 instruction, including the trajectory of learning anticipated as a result of this intensive model; and whether the anticipated growth is likely to facilitate a student’s increased independence and ability to interact positively with peers.Electronic IEP System. Dr. Osypuk initially streamlined the electronic IEP system by reducing the number of dropdown menu options. One of the options eliminated concerned 1:1 instruction as an instructional service delivery group. Two administrators later persuaded her to put the option back in the menu. The impact of these directives and measures, and the related reduction of 1:1 services for students are discussed further below under the third finding relating to “Unlawful Predeterminations.”Speech/Language ServicesTwo documents pertain to actions taken during the 2012-13 school year with respect to speech/language services:Prior Discussion. The August Training PowerPoint includes the requirement for a prior discussion with an administrator prior to recommending 1:1 instruction (including speech/language) and the services of the speech/language pathologist (SLP) coordinator. As stated above, CSDE found this requirement to be overly restrictive; and that it undermined PPT authority. Proposed 2013-14 Budget. The proposed budget included the following relevant activity as a means for assigning staff effectively and efficiently: Ensure the primary role of all staff members is to work directly with students instead of being a consultant only. Based on these activities, it was anticipated that the speech therapist account would be reduced by $126,242, from $1,664,151 to $1,537,909 (8% decrease).One of the motivating factors for reducing speech/language services was the concern that Darien students received a disproportionately high level of services in this area. Although national and state incidence data is readily available to show the percentage of all students with IEPs who have primary speech/language impairment, it is not reported for secondary and tertiary disabilities. According to a newsletter article published by the highly regarded American Speech Hearing Association (ASHA), data from one state, which is considered to be predictive of others, shows that the percentage of students with a speech/language impairment based on a primary, secondary and tertiary disability of all students with IEPs is a little more than double the percentage of those with only a primary disability. The data reflected on the chart below shows that the percentage of DPS students with a primary disability in the area of speech/language compared to all students with IEPs dropped from 2011-12’s 20% to the following year’s 18%, and increased to 19% at the beginning of 2013-14. The 2012-13 school year percentage is smaller than the nation’s 22% and it is the same as the state’s 19%. When considering all speech/language services Darien students receive, the 2011-12 rate of 40% dropped the following two school years to 37%. The current 37% rate is a little less than the rate reported in the ASHA article. Reportedly, SLPs were told that 400 students of about 620 students with IEPs received IEP-related speech/language services. However, the number of IEP-related speech/language services in any of the three years in question never exceeded 247.Rate of All Students with IEPs having Primary Speech/Language Disability & Total Speech/Language Services During the 2012-13 school year, the following actions were taken that pertain to the administration of speech/language services.Reduction of SLPs & Impact. In part based on the opinions of Dr. Pandolfo and the school principal, Dr. Osypuk decided just before the beginning of the 2012-13 school year not to fill an SLP position at an elementary school. The decision to cut SLP support to students by 25% was taken against the protestations of the SLP coordinator and school SLPs who did not believe schedules could be adjusted appropriately. The process used by the director and principal to unilaterally readjust caseloads, form student service groups, and develop student schedules predictably led to serious concerns and outcomes regarding the provision of IEP-required and appropriately managed speech/language services to students. In addition, it led to a year of unnecessary anxiety and stress for the SLPs that sought to deliver services in the most responsible and ethical ways. To the extent they were able, the SLPs readjusted their schedules to cure inappropriate student groupings. Although an additional part-time SLP provided some relief in November, an additional SLP was not hired until the 2013-14 school year. The principal has acknowledged that he and the director should have placed more trust in the judgment of the SLP coordinator and the school’s SLPs. Meetings & Matrices. Monthly meetings for SLPs were no longer used to have meaningful discussions about their students and their service needs. A significant amount of time was used to develop a set of seven matrices based solely on standardized test scores. The SLPs had varying understanding of the prescriptive nature of these matrices; however, none indicated that they were used in their daily practice. Importantly, the district does not have any meaningful standards that would include a combination of scores and description of student characteristics that would help to guide consistent and appropriate eligibility and service decision-making. Score-based PLEPs. The expectation that eligibility for speech/language services and a description of PLEPs, which is the foundation for IEP services, be based solely on standardized scores is not defendable. Related literature, including CSDE’s guidance establishes that:[S]tandardized test scores tend to examine discrete skills in a decontextualized manner (i.e., away from natural communicative environments). A comprehensive assessment should include an appropriate balance of formal and descriptive assessment instruments and procedures to identify areas of strength and weakness and to examine how the child functions communicatively in the environments in which he or she participates. Discipline Training Materials The August 15-16, 2012 PowerPoint document, A Basic Understanding of IDEA (Understanding IDEA), essentially provides that when disciplining students with IEPs, school officials may impose the same discipline as they do for general education students unless a behavior intervention plan (BIP) indicates otherwise or the basis of the student’s misconduct is a manifestation of his/her disability. The February 26, 2013 BOE document reporting on the district’s implementation of recommendations resulting from the Badway Study provides the same information. These materials in the Understanding IDEA and BOE Report documents, however, do not accurately reflect complex and detailed IDEA requirements, and they give an incomplete explanation of discipline standards when there is a finding of no manifestation determination. One aspect of this insufficiency concerns steps that must be taken when a student with an IEP is suspended for more than 10 days in a calendar year. In this case, school officials must ensure that that the student continues to receive educational services even when the student’s disruptive behavior is not a manifestation of his/her disability. These educational services must be designed so they enable the student to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the student’s IEP. Thus, contrary to the two documents referenced above, school officials may not impose the same discipline for students with IEPs as they do for their typical peers when the student’s misconduct is not a manifestation of his/her disabilities, or the student does not have a controlling BIP. 2. Lack of Meaningful Parental InvolvementThe combination of systemic directives and their consequences described below had the effect of depriving parents a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of their children’s IEPs.Unified Front & Pre-PPT DiscussionsOne of the first issues shared with me and a topic of frequent lively discussions during focus group sessions, parent meetings, and interviews concerned the November 6, 2013 Building Consistency document and its reference to the term, “Unified Front.” The document’s directives for PPT meetings included the following “Unified front – if changes are going to be recommended, differences among team members need to be worked out prior to the PPT.” The Building Consistency document was not a “transparent” document in that it was not shared with parents. Furthermore, some Darien officials and staff took issue with the fact that school personnel shared this and other documents with parents (even though they would have been available to parents through their Freedom of Information Request). These circumstances increased the mistrust and tension between the parents of some children with disabilities, and the BOE as a whole, and the DPS administration. In several letters, Dr. Osypuk wrote that in hindsight she regretted using the term “unified front” because some parents have misinterpreted this to mean "us" versus "them" and/or predetermination of a PPT decision. “The intent was for staff who anticipated disagreement from a colleague to seek to understand their co-workers' differing opinions before the PPT, so that these disagreements could be addressed in a professional manner during a PPT meeting.” The director explained that this process was designed to address past practices by some staff members who had been disrespectful and unprofessional towards each other during PPT meetings. Further, Dr. Osypuk agreed that the term could be misinterpreted to be inconsistent with the requirement that decisions are made at PPT meetings. She recommended that the statement “be removed and that parents be provided with an explanation of the actual intent to help rebuild trust.” In spite of the term and its interpretation by some, Dr. Osypuk wrote: “… it was not our practice to require prior approval or predetermination. Anyone who had taken part in our PPT meetings knows that the process was dynamic with everyone having an opportunity to share their ideas.” There was a difference of opinion of individuals with whom I met during focus group sessions, interviews, parent meetings, and staff/parent surveys regarding the extent to which this statement reflected day-to-day practice across schools. DPS personnel and parents provided the following feedback regarding PPT meeting practices with respect to full discussion of DPS preliminary proposals; consideration of parent responses; and the existence of any consensus building among the participants to find common ground. Quiet PPT MeetingsCommonly, participants spoke about a new level of “quiet” in PPT meetings that occurred for a variety of reasons. Some parents shared that this “quietness” represented one of the biggest paradigm shifts during the 2012-13 school year. Their overarching perception was that school personnel would offer their proposals; parents would offer proposals; administrators would try to get parents to agree with their proposals; and then administrators would finalize their original proposals. About 23 of 28 parents present at one of the parent meetings I facilitated indicated they agreed with this perception. Another perspective was that meetings are quiet when parents have attorneys or advocates at the meeting. Staff indicated that they would be unsure about whether the parent was talking to a reporter and they felt they were under a spot light. They indicated also that staff would be quiet when parents were “contentious.” Lack of Focus in Staff Training on Consensus BuildingA combination of teachers, school administrators and related service personnel agreed that their training did not include information that focused on building consensus of participants in PPT meetings. In addition, there was no discussion about how additional information provided by parents would be considered fully by the PPT, including strategies to build on areas of common agreement. In all of the documents that were generated regarding PPT meetings and the various related issues, only the September 24th internal document How to Run a Pre-Meeting mentioned the word “consensus.” The document includes the following statement: While the PPT always has as its goal of consensus, there are times when the school and parent may disagree. These disagreements will be documented on p.3 of the IEP. While the document reflects the goal of consensus, there was no other mention in that or the other documents that provided any guidance about the process of building consensus. Information to Parents about Changes While there were several sessions for school personnel regarding the many procedural changes for processes leading up to and including the management of PPT meetings, no information was provided to parents in a proactive manner regarding these changes. The back door way in which parents found out about the changes did not help to support the facilitation of meaningful conversations at PPT meetingsParent/Staff SurveyOne survey statement indicated that chairpersons clarified at the outset of the PPT meeting that the areas proposed/discussed were preliminary and subject to review and discussion with parents. Of the survey respondents with an opinion, 48 (49%) parents and 20 (19%) staff members (strongly) disagreed with the statement. For another statement about chairpersons seeking to reach team consensus about various aspects of IEP services, 38 (42%) parents and 8 (7%) staff members (strongly) disagreed with the statement. Parent/Survey Staff: Proposals are Preliminary Recommendations & PPT Goal of Consensus Prescriptive DirectivesDr. Osypuk produced the following directives that were restrictive rather than encouraging of meaningful parental participation in PPT meetings. Almost all of these directives were cited as noncompliant in CSDE’s July 18, 2013 letter of findings. “What to Say When…” & “More-is-Better” Decision-Making ApproachThe August Training PowerPoint included two sets of slides that pertain to the director’s theme of excessive services: “What to Say When” and Decision-Making Approach “More-is-Better.” What to Say When... Two slides provided suggested district responses to parents when they made requests for “excessive services.” CSDE found that the content represented a violation of IDEA. Dr. Osypuk recognized that she could “understand how a parent reading this might misinterpret the information and therefore, [she suggested] removing these slides from the training materials in order to help rebuild trust.” The director did not address, however, the core IDEA concept of “consensus building” between all participants of PPTs, which is based on a discourse between the team members and parents. For parents to have meaningful participation there must be more than a parent request and stock administrative response. Decision-Making Approach “More-is-Better.” In a series of three slides, 11 specific areas are mentioned where it is asserted that one can confuse quantity with quality, and that this confusion could have potential unintended negative consequences. One specific consequence that was mentioned included “inequities in distribution of scarce resources.” In its July 18, 2013 report, CSDE wrote that the text associated with these slides “may be misinterpreted to mean there are no students who require extensive services.” It was recommended that the language be revised. This citation is based on the reality that some PowerPoint handouts and emailed copies survive training sessions. Standing alone, the slides reinforce the concepts of a “floodgate” of “excessive services” and a perceived direction to reduce services. Immediate Stop Gap MeasuresThe July 25th PowerPoint for the Special Education Administrator Meeting included slides for “Immediate Stop Gap Measures” to have prior discussions with the director about specific services before recommending them at PPT meetings; and to refrain from writing seven specified services in IEPs (e.g., specific consultation time; in-home service; team meetings, etc.). In its July 18th report, CSDE found the statements “are overly restrictive and represent violations of IDEA by undermining the decision-making authority of the PPT.” Although the PowerPoint document was not intended for public distribution, other documents Dr. Osypuk issued subsequently contained directives for prior discussions with administrators about the issues; and emailed messages sent and received during the school year continued to reference this expectation. Although subsequent written information did not include a directive to refrain from writing certain services in IEPs, other directives were subsequently issued regarding the services that CSDE found to be noncompliant. The fact that this slide was prepared, even as a tool to facilitate discussion, reflects an impermissible mindset that requires significant interpretation to otherwise understand. Such language has fueled the perception of parents that services were determined, or excluded, prior to PPT meetings. Potential Recommendations Requiring Discussion w/Administrator Prior to PPTThe PowerPoint presentation used during the August training sessions also included a slide that required a discussion with an administrator for potential recommendations for specified services prior to a PPT. In its July 18, 2013 report, CSDE found the requirements to be “overly restrictive and represent violations of IDEA by undermining the decision-making authority of the PPT.”Attendance at PPT Meetings CSDE also cited the November 6th Building Consistency document that restricts the attendance of the following related services personnel and special educators at PPT meetings, thereby potentially preventing individualization of a student’s program. OT Personnel. Will only be available to attend PPT 2 (Eligibility PPT), Annuals, TriennialsAT Coordinator. Will only attend PPTs for which she is reporting on an evaluation.THI/TVI. Will only attend PPTs for students they provide direct services.Advanced Notice of Attorneys & Outside EvaluationsSchool personnel were notified that parents must provide advanced notice of: attorneys who will attend the PPT; their intent to record the PPT meeting; and an outside evaluation. IDEA’s implementing regulation gives parents discretion to include as part of the IEP team other individuals with knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, and specifies parameters for outside evaluations at public expense. These provisions are not conditioned on parent notice to the district. In its July 18th letter, CSDE found that the requirements for parents to provide prior notice of attorneys and outside evaluations” to be “inconsistent with the law as no such requirements exist.” Number of PPT Meetings The February 26, 2013 BOE Report (Appendix B) presented by Dr. Osypuk in collaboration with Dr. Pandolfo reflected a rule that parents have the right to a “reasonable” number of PPT meetings per school year. This rule does not comport to IDEA’s clear legislative history that there should be as many meetings a year as any one child may need or state provisions requiring the number of meetings to be student-based. Time Frame for Providing IEPs to Parents Subsequent to the PPT MeetingAccording to CSDE’s September 25, 2013 second set of findings, many IEPs were finalized after an excessive amount of time had passed from the PPT meeting date. This outcome did not meet the state’s requirement that parents receive a full and finalized copy of the IEP within five school days after the PPT meeting to develop, review or revise the document. The agency opined that the delay might have been the result of the district’s procedures for processing IEP documents. Based on a review of the IEP system’s data showing for each PPT meeting held in 2012-13, the PPT/IEP meeting date and finalization of IEP date, there were 220 IEPs finalized more than five school days from the date of the PPT/IEP meeting. This analysis was based on a calendar that excluded school vacations, holidays and the days schools were closed due to Hurricane Sandy; and the count excluded amendments to IEPs. The delays were associated with all five DPS personnel who finalized IEPs. Communication with ParentsWritten documents, as well as parent and school personnel feedback reflected serious and sometimes contradictory concerns about use of the following methods for sharing information about students: Use of parent meetings to discuss student progress and concerns; Use of logs to communicate with parents; Use of home services; andSharing progress-monitoring data with parents.The literature is replete with research showing the value of parent/school partnerships and collaboration and its relationship to student outcomes. There is no question that Darien parents of children with special needs have a significant desire to be involved in the education of their children. This partnership for individual children, as reflected through IEPs with in-home services and./or written communication expectations, was negatively impacted by the combination of a restrictive written directive that was not intended for public viewing, its implementation, and a change in personnel roles. A special education SOPM that included appropriate standards for considering these issues would help to provide a uniform clarification of responsibilities and expectations, and help to promote reasonable and meaningful parent/school collaboration. Such collaboration would enable parents to have better information and more meaningfully participate in PPT/IEP meetings.Therapeutic Learning Center (TLC) During the first part of the 2012-13 school year, parents of children in the district’s TLC program became alarmed that the program was going to close, and that their children would be relocated to their neighborhood schools. The anatomy of the circumstances that gave rise to this alarm provides additional insight into the administration of special education last school year. July 23rd email from Dr. Osypuk to administrators at the school housing the TLC reflects an end goal for all TLC students to return to their home school with proper supports.September 19th email from Dr. Osypuk to the administrators about the possibility of using an evaluation performance goal to “’help’ TLC move in the direction we want to go in.”October 17th email from Dr. Osypuk to Drs. Falcone and Pandolfo regarding the previous day’s cabinet discussion with an attachment of the current TLC student roster, including the names of students that are in bold that are less likely to transition to homeschools the following year.October meeting with six parents of students in TLC where the issue of students in the TLC program transitioning back to their home schools was discussed publicly for the first time. Parents were told that decisions would be made at PPT meetings throughout the year, but no particular plan was shared regarding the manner in which the transition would be supported and the manner in which services/supports would be in place at home schools. Some parents had significant concerns that the director was unable to answer all questions fully, and some perceived that the issue was discussed prematurely. A few parents appreciated the new option for their children; but they understood the concerns of the other parents. Three students formerly in the TLC program are now in their home schools.Early November. Parents contact BOE members to share their concerns that the “TLC was going to be shut down.” Some parents had the perception that the BOE had already approved the change. The superintendent assured board members that some students would always need the TLC structure and an evening parent meeting was set up to reassure parents.November meeting for parents with students in TLC with the superintendent and director who reassured the parents that the TLC was not closing.November FAQs & TLC Fact Sheet provided clear information about Darien’s vision for the TLC that appeared to have ended the immediate parent concerns.There are several important lessons to be learned from this TLC anatomy. While I am a strong proponent of inclusive education and the value of educating students in their home schools, transitioning from a system with a very strong and valued centralized program to a decentralized inclusive model requires leadership, and a comprehensive, collaborative planning process with parents and staff. The process does not begin in the backroom with a list of students, and an announcement of what will be done. Such an approach is designed for failure. Rather, parents and staff are valuable, effective and necessary partners. For this purpose, they receive and help to produce background information about the benefits of this instructional approach, and contribute to a meaningful discussion of challenges, potential problems, service/resource considerations, and other issues commonly addressed in this process. For example, the Boston Public Schools has three of the country’s best inclusive schools, which have been refining their methodology for many years, and are the subject of a published book. Observations of these and other schools that model what many parents would like to see for all of their children could help to guides discussion and planning for effective inclusive schools. It would also enable parents to engage in relevant PPT discussions with more information and understanding.Parent Access To and Release of Information A combination of emails, documents and feedback from parents and district representatives reveals that Darien does not have procedures and practices in place to ensure that –All education records, including electronic and paper documents pertaining to SRBI, other progress monitoring results, evaluation and other assessment data, etc., are maintained in a manner consistent with relevant federal and state requirements.Electronic and manual search functions operate in a manner that enables the retrievers of information to identify and collect all relevant education records in response to a FERPA or FOIA request.All DPS employees have knowledge of and are accountable for the maintenance of records and documents in the manner required by FERPA/state law (records retention schedule), and are organized in a manner that allows them to be retrieved when required to fully respond to a FERPA/FOIA request. All DPS employees have knowledge of and are accountable for releasing personally identifiable education records only with prior parent consent unless the release is authorized by and complies with FERPA provisions. 3. Unlawful PredeterminationsThe use of a directive to provide support for personnel on an “as needed” basis, the change in special education/related services personnel roles, the reduction of outside contracts, and other actions led to a reduction in services/supports in student IEPs. These circumstances amounted to a predetermination of services and support by restricting PPTs in their design of IEPs to meet students’ individualized needs. The actions and their impact are summarized below. Amount of Time for Support to PersonnelDr. Osypuk directed IEPs be written with an “as needed” frequency for assistive technology (AT) and occupational therapy (OT) consultative services, and for paraprofessional support for personnel. This directive blatantly predetermined IEP services/supports and severely restricted PPT decision-making. The requirement for “as needed” frequency was referenced in three documents: the July Administrator Meeting PowerPoint (PPTs refrain from writing “specific consultation time” in the IEP); the Building Consistency document, which specifically addressed AT and OT consultation; and the Sample IEP that addressed paraprofessional support. AT Consultation. Consultation will be case manager driven. OT Consultation. Going forward, consult needs to be “as needed” and driven by case manager. There should be few, if any, regularly scheduled consult meeting times. Any current IEPs that have specified consult times will need to occur until IEP expires. Paraprofessional Support. Para support “as needed” for the duration of the IEP.” (Sample IEP) The directive regarding paraprofessional support was reinforced in the February 2013 BOE Report, which was prepared jointly by Drs. Pandolfo and Osypuk. The report stated that, as part of the evidence that “[a]ll special ed teachers and related service staff were trained on how to write legally compliant IEPs that promote student independence and generalization of skills” .. “ [a]dult support is being written in ‘as needed’ to allow the case manager to use his/her discretion as to when the student requires this level of support.” The regulation implementing IDEA specifies that the IEP is to include: a statement of the supports for school personnel that will be provided; and their anticipated frequency, location, and duration of these supports. Federal guidance reinforces the requirement that the IEP is to provide clear notice about the resources being committed; and state guidance provides examples that reflect notice of specific periods of time. “As needed” provides neither notice nor specificity. CSDE’s July 18, 2013 letter cited Darien for this noncompliant restrictive directive.Parent/Staff SurveyA survey statement referenced the following: If consultation/supports were described in the IEP as “as needed,” parents/staff understood specifically who would determine the need and the criteria/objective data that would be used to determine when the “need” was present. Of those respondents with opinions, 54 (71%) parents and 28 (39%) staff members (strongly) disagreed with the statement.Parent/Staff Survey: Understand Need & Criteria Data to Determine when “As Needed” PromptedAT Consultation on “As Needed” BasisCSDE’s July 18, 2013 letter cited the district for the following AT management practices: The August Training PowerPoint presentation’s listing of potential recommendations relative to AT services/evaluations and expensive equipment/technology (e.g., iPads) that required discussion with an administrator prior to a PPT meeting was “overly restrictive.” The November 6, 2012, Building Consistency document’s requirement to speak with a special education administrator prior to requesting an AT evaluation was overly restrictive and was found to undermine PPT authority; and limiting the AT consultant’s attendance at PPTs to those in which she is reporting on an evaluation potentially prevented individualization of a student’s program. In addition, the Building Consistency document restricted consultation to be “case manager driven.” This directive is linked to the discussion above regarding consultation to be an “as needed” service. Occupational Therapy (OT)The November 6th Building Consistency document included various restrictive directives for OT. The pertinent directive for the instant discussion pertains to the requirement that “[g]oing forward, OT [therapy] consultation needs to be “as needed” and driven by the case manager. Most consultation should occur via phone and/or email. There should be few, if any, regularly scheduled consultation meeting times. Any current IEPs that have specified consultation times will need to occur until the IEP expires. According to Dr. Osypuk, “OTs were asked to consider consulting on an "as needed" basis, to avoid having to go back to PPT if they needed more hours and to permit them to attend team meetings only when their area was on the agenda.” (Emphasis added.) This explanation, however, changes the verb used in the directive from the more emphatic consultation “needs to be as needed” to the gentler “consider” consultation on that basis. The director further wrote:[Consultation “as needed”] was put in place … because the concerns from OTs was that they were locked into a certain number of consult hours per IEP and were finding that sometimes more or less hours were actually needed. OTs and case managers were instructed to abide by the current IEPs but going forward to use a more “as needed” approach. At no point, were the OTs ever instructed to eliminate consultation.In response to the CSDE July 18th letter citation that the various directives limit and potentially prevent individuation, Dr. Osypuk agreed with the finding. In her August 2nd letter to the superintendent, she explained her intent for the “as needed” consultation and the previously referenced restriction on OT attendance at PPT meetings: The intent here was to promote efficient use of staff time, as some staff had raised the concern that they were being drawn away unnecessarily, from providing services to students due to attending PPT meetings where their area of expertise was not being discussed. In order to ensure that the PPT is properly constituted to individualize a student’s program, it should be left up to the team as to who is invited to the PPT meeting. The prescription that OT consultation be “as needed” as determined by the case manager, and additional directives regarding the provision of OT services that is discussed further below, presumes that PPT members will write IEPs reflecting this service configuration. This expectation of PPT members results in an unlawful restriction of their decision-making authority and is based on a predetermination regarding how they will design a student’s IEP.Paraprofessional SupportSeveral DPS documents addressed paraprofessional (i.e., aide) support to students and personnel. “As Needed” Usage in Sample IEP. The Sample IEP document illustrated how paraprofessional support required for school personnel to implement the IEP was to be written as “as needed.” The usage of IEPs in this manner was reinforced in a number of email messages that addressed the issue of paraprofessional allocation. Reallocation versus New Hires of Paraprofessionals. The proposed 2013-14 RC-24 Special Education Budget prepared by Drs. Osypuk and Pandolfo specified that there would be consideration of whether a reallocation of teacher aides would be able to fulfill students’ IEP needs when attrition occurs instead of automatically filling the position with a new hire. It was estimated that the cost for teacher aides would decrease by $80,487 (from $2,514,968 to $2,434,481). The following circumstances are relevant to this information.Darien’s practice of directing that paraprofessional support be provided on an “as needed” basis is not consistent with the IDEA requirements that were discussed earlier in this report. Of those staff members with an opinion, 24 (33%) (strongly) disagreed that they were not restricted in making a PPT recommendation for a specific frequency of paraprofessional support and 26 (45%) parents had a similar belief. An effective management of paraprofessional support for students includes an assessment of current resources prior to hiring additional staff. However, when considering needs for a new school year, the assessment should to be done early enough in the summer to ensure that services are in place for students at the beginning of the next school year. The timing of this process would better ensure that parents are provided notice about their children’s teachers/support staff at the same time as parents of children without IEPs, and avoid needless anxiety and concern. In one case study, it is questionable whether a student would have received the support he eventually received without his parent’s attention and advocacy. At one school, a general education teacher who was also certified to teach special education was deemed to be a student’s “special educator” so that a paraeducator (as IEP-specified) would not need to be assigned to support the teacher. According to feedback from a CSDE representative, a general educator cannot serve in a dual role as a student’s special education and general education teacher. When allocating paraprofessionals to meet IEP-designated services/supports, it is essential for this activity to be conducted in a manner that enables these personnel to provide the intended services/supports. Each school must be accountable for ensuring that services are implemented with fidelity. At one school, a paraeducator and parent were asked not to communicate about a child. Effective communication systems include reasonable discussion between paraprofessionals and parents to share important information. Standards for this communication would be relevant for a special education SOPM. Changes in Roles of Special Education/Related Services PersonnelAt the beginning of the 2012-13 school year, Dr. Osypuk, in some cases in collaboration with Dr. Pandolfo, initiated role changes for special education/related services personnel that occurred prior to, rather than as a result of, changes in student IEPs. These role changes applied to the AT coordinator, autism inclusion coordinators, reading specialist, feeding/swallowing team, and speech/language coordinator.AT CoordinatorThe AT coordinator came to Darien with about 25 years of AT experience. During the 2011-12 school year, which was the first year the district had a full-time coordinator, the AT coordinator spent most of her time conducting evaluations and initiating services. IDEA has an expansive definition of AT devices and services. Devices include any item that can be used to increase, maintain, or improve a student’s functional independence and capabilities. It refers to any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability. AT services are those that directly assist a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an AT device. The term includes:The evaluation of student needs, including a functional evaluation in the student’s customary environment;Purchasing, leasing, or otherwise acquiring AT devices;Selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing AT devices;Training or technical assistance for a student or, if appropriate, the family; andTraining or technical assistance for professionals, employers, or other individuals who provide services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved in the major life functions of a student.As evident from the above provisions, IDEA’s AT requirements are substantial. As noted in CSDE’s prior AT Guidelines:It is important to note … that not all professionals who work with students with special needs are knowledgeable about, or capable of, conducting assistive technology evaluations. In fact, at the present time, the number of professionals who have any degree of expertise with assistive technology is relatively small. … The evaluation report should also contain clear expectations and sequences for training, including approximations of set-up and initial training time, as well as a complete listing of those who should be trained and how often the training should take place. When Dr. Osypuk assumed her duties at the beginning of the 2012-13 school year, the AT coordinator agreed that AT services could be better managed in a way that would enable her to spend more time with students having significant AT service needs. However, during initial discussions the director informed the AT coordinator that she would be expected to transition to a full-time SLP position. Through a September 14, 2012 email to the director, the coordinator emailed her concerns about such a drastic change in her role: “At this time, I am not sure how practical it is to commit to the same building 5 days a week when my consult time on IEPs totals “up to 1,095” hours in addition to at least 13 other students which I am on “as needed” as well as my 4 “consult-evaluations.” That averages to up to 30.42 consult hours weekly for a 180-day school year before consideration for the additional 13 “as needed” students, any new evaluations, as well as my other responsibilities.A month later on October 17, 2012, Dr. Pandolfo emailed the AT coordinator (with a copy to Dr. Osypuk), to document a prior meeting discussion and reinforce that the AT coordinator would begin to transition to an SPL role as follows: “Over this year, you will begin shifting from your current role to a more direct speech service to students next year. This year you will serve as a sub for speech teachers who are absent (unless you are asked to do XX’s maternity leave.)” The change in the AT coordinator’s role had numerous negative consequences that affected students. These consequences were foreseeable based on the coordinator’s IEP-based AT consultative caseload that existed at the beginning of the 2012-13 school year, and the processes put into place to substantially reduce her caseload. It is noteworthy that:2011-12 data shows the AT coordinator was to provide 989 hours of AT consultation or services to 55 students; 10 IEPs reflected AT support to personnel on an “as needed” basis. 2013-14 data shows the AT coordinator was to provide 20 hours of consultation/services to 33 students; 33 IEPs reflected AT support to personnel on an “as needed” basis. In order to meet her superiors’ expectations that she transition from a full-time AT coordinator/consultative role to a part-time role, a substantial amount of IEP-related consultation services would have to either be reduced significantly or not provided. In this manner, there was a determination of student need prior to PPT determinations. Further evidence of this expectation was reflected by the 2012-13 Student Learning Goals (professional evaluation) that Dr. Osypuk suggested for the coordinator: an assessment of the coordinator’s practice as evidenced by a reduction in her consultative services by the end of the year. According to the September 24, 2012, Clarifying Questions for Persons Chairing PPT Meetings (Clarifying Questions), there was an expectation that teachers would identify the professional development they needed to carry out AT activities, and to facilitate a reduced reliance on the AT coordinator’s consultation. There was no evidence, however, of a comprehensive and planned process for obtaining information about teacher needs, and for providing necessary training. Special Education Teacher Acting as Reading SpecialistIn an August 3, 2012 email to her team, Dr. Osypuk wrote that she was removing from a special education teacher’s caseload her IEP-related consultation as a “reading specialist” because she is not a “certified reading specialist.” She explained that this action was being taken “…to provide consistency for our students, empower our case managers, and be legally compliant with what is written in IEP’s.” She also wrote that the consulting hours written up to a certain amount would be acted on an “as needed” basis: I am of the understanding that you may have certified Reading Specialists/Teachers in your buildings who might be able to assume this “consultant” role. All consulting hours are listed as “up to” a certain number so they would not be tied into a specific amount, but would act more on an “as needed” basis. If this is feasible, I think this would be a great opportunity to further “blur” the lines between general ed and special ed. Below are the # of students at each school.At the time, the Darien reading specialist was specified on 16 students’ IEPs. Dr. Osypuk’s decision to remove consultation from the special educator’s caseload was based solely on the educator’s certification status as a certified special education teacher, not a certified reading specialist. Had she asked, the director would have understood that the teacher’s consultancy was based on her training in a highly recognized and specialized multi-sensory reading program, and parents of students receiving this service had an expectation of this specialized consultation. With that understanding, the director could have taken various follow-up actions to address any remaining concerns. In this vacuum, compensatory education has been required for two students, and may be appropriate for the 14 other students with IEPs reflecting this service. None of the email correspondence regarding this matter mentioned any notice to parents about the change in the role of the special educator. Various case studies illustrated the impact of this change, the lack of planning in advance of the change, or follow-up taken subsequent to the change. In addition, the elementary special education administrator advised a special educator that she could carry out the reading specialist role in the following informal and inappropriate manner:… the Consultations are conversations that illicit advice from someone who has a specific expertise, and these conversations can happen within PLCs, informal times, or scheduled times. Optimally, these conversations would happen in a natural collaboration time, like a PC meeting. Very often they may sound something like, “I’m noticing that XXX is having a hard time with ___, what’s your thinking on how best to approach that?” And then the consultant provides suggestions and advice on instructional strategies, resources, or assessments to try. To be clear, consultation is not service hours. In this case, the change in the role of the special educator who had been providing specialized reading consultation without using other means to address any concerns about the consultation misnomer predetermined the nature of the services the students would be receiving. Also, this service was changed outside of a PPT meeting, and without any prior written notice to parents. This set of facts is relevant to the next finding regarding IEP changes outside of a PPT meeting or formal amendment process.Autism Inclusion SpecialistsPrior to the 2012-13 school year, two autism inclusion specialists provided support to students pursuant to their IEPs. One specialist had been serving in this role for about 12 years and the second for about 6.5 years. The specialists consulted with school teams about students with autism or autism-like characteristics, or with other severe/emotional issues. They assisted with the development/ implementation of strategies for the use of effective instruction and supplementary aids/services that would enable the students to be successful in general education classrooms. In addition, they supported the provision of curricular modifications, social/emotional support and skill development, the development of functional behavior assessments/behavior intervention plans, and Social Thinking curriculum and they assessed students with the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS). The specialists also worked as liaisons with parents, helping them to understand and address issues related to their children’s disability. Various documents contained directives or restrictions on the use of the autism inclusion specialists:The August Training PowerPoint presentation required a prior discussion with an administrator for PPT recommendations regarding use of the autism inclusion specialist. CSDE’s July letter cited this requirement as being “overly restrictive.” The September 24th Clarifying Questions document had PPT chairpersons ask, in pertinent part, when considering consultation with autism inclusion specialists: “What PD do you need to be able to provide that instruction?” By the beginning of the 2013-14 school year, the electronic IEP system no longer included the autism inclusion specialist as a menu option. The February RC-24 Special Education Proposed 2013-14 Budget, prepared by Drs. Osypuk and Pandolfo, established that the primary role of all staff members is to work directly with students instead of as a consultant only. Although it has been asserted that the requirement for a discussion with administrators prior to a potential recommendation for the services/consultation of an autism inclusion specialist was not to predetermine PPT decisions, it is clear that by the end of the 2012-13 school year this this service/consultation was effectively eliminated. This outcome was compounded by the lack of notice to parents and Darien staff to discuss the impact of a potential personnel change and how it might impact the instruction and support for students. Furthermore, the diminished use of the Social Thinking curriculum without considering its usefulness for particular students disregards the concept of individualization embedded in IDEA. School districts frequently make personnel changes based on many circumstances. That flexibility changes when student IEPs are tied to specific personnel, even if they do not hold a “specialized certification.” Feeding/Swallowing TeamPrior to the 2012-13 school year, Darien had a centralized feeding/swallowing multi-disciplinary team with a core of three SLPs and contributions from nursing, PT, and OT. Team members each had their own school-based caseloads but met or carried out a team role when necessary to screen children having complex oral motor needs. Reportedly, the team members were highly trained and considered to be “gurus” in this area. At the beginning of the 2012-13 school year, two of the SLP team members left Darien for positions in other districts. The remaining coordinating team member assumed that at least one of the members of the departing members of the team would be replaced. When that did not happen, and the SLP with the greatest knowledge in this area had departed, the remaining core team member stepped back with hope that the team would be reconstituted; but that did not happen. Instead, Dr. Osypuk created building-based teams based on qualified staff at each school. This school-based process, however, did not take into account the collaborative approach recommended in CSDE’s 2008 Guidelines for Feeding and Swallowing Programs in Schools, even for small districts, as being necessary to address the continuing and new complex needs of children. When a student has an identified feeding/swallowing deficit, the potential for suffocation and other harmful effects is great. Because of this concern and issues that had surfaced in the State of Connecticut in the past, CSDE developed its Guidelines. The document is not for light reading. It is highly technical, replete with medical language and explanations, and it is evident that highly trained personnel are necessary to ensure the health and safety of impacted children. Although the Guidelines state that a team is not necessary for compliance, they stress the need for training, coordinated collaboration and available consultation. The information described above reflects no plan or specific activities that were in place after the team was disbanded (other than to contact a specific individual, and that another would be hired if that person was not available) to support school-based personnel; and to ensure essential elements would continue to be in place in spite of the lack of an identified team. Also, there was no indication of any attempt to recruit from current staff new team members and provide them the training necessary to continue the work of this team. Although there was no evidence of life-threatening harm to a child due to the changes, the practices created confusion for the school community and may have interfered with the meaningful consideration of such services for students. . SLP CoordinatorEarly August, the director notified the coordinator that she would be moving to a full-time SLP caseload, which dramatically differed from the superintendent’s prior communication that her role would not change. The coordinator would continue with IEP-designated consulting services until they were phased out at subsequent PPT meetings, and would begin to provide speech/language services to students placed outside of the district. According to an August 17th email from Dr. Osypuk to the superintendent, the director’s goal to phase out the coordinator’s consultation was based on an assumption that she had “transferred skills to building based SLPs.” It is not clear, however, how the director expected an SLP with such a high level of experience, knowledge and expertise to transfer in one school year this compilation of skills to SLPs. According to the coordinator’s notes prepared for an August 24th meeting with the director and superintendent, Dr. Osypuk had instructed the coordinator to discontinue at the next PPT meeting her consultative services and any case management duties for five students; the relevant consultation totaled 250 hours, e.g., about 6 hours per week. The coordinator reported that her questions about the process for communicating these changes with parents and school staff were not answered. A directive based on an expectation that IEPs would no longer include a service regardless of need constitutes a wrongful predetermination that disregards the PPT’s decision-making authority.Although there is no requirement that Darien have a coordinator for speech/language services, reportedly one is typically in place in other Connecticut school districts having more than 10 SLPs; Darien data at the beginning of the 2013-14 school year reflected 19.6 SLPs. The district’s coordinator resigned because of her concern about decisions being made without regard to her feedback, and her perception of the director’s lack of respect for her experience, knowledge and expertise. By contrast, the many individuals with whom I spoke held the coordinator in high regard and, especially the SLPs, believed that they and Darien had lost a valuable resource.Individualized Services Various directives and measures were used to reduce the extent to which services would be provided to students on a 1:1 basis. As cited by CSDE, prior discussions with administrators were required to recommend this service at a PPT meeting. Physical therapists were directed to organize their schedules by serving students in groups, and only later were told to check student IEPs for 1:1 service designations. In these directions, there was no reference to a need to group students with “groupable” PT needs. Similar directions were issued to SLPs and counselors, and eight parents reported 1:1 IEP services for their children were provided in a group setting.Concerns regarding ways to meet IEP-required 1:1 paraprofessional support in one school were not resolved until at least October, and it was reported that one teacher from another school could not recommend at a PPT meeting a young child’s need for 1:1 services. Initially the 1:1 electronic IEP dropdown menu option was deleted until the director was convinced by some administrators to have it reinstated. Based on the parent/staff survey, 43 (44%) parents (strongly) disagreed with a statement that the PPT did not meaningfully consider their opinion regarding a child’s need for 1:1 services; and 13 (14%) staff persons had a similar opinion regarding a statement that they were not limited in making a recommendation at the PPT for 1:1 services.The documents and actions discussed above reflected an absence of carefully developed standards for determining a student’s need for individual or group services or the sharing of a paraprofessional with other students based on a schedule and severity of need. The impact of this process resulted in services provided to students based on prior decisions rather than by the PPT deliberative process. Appropriate guidance could have been developed in collaboration with experts within and outside of the district, and parent representatives, and legal review. In this way, the consideration of this issue would have benefited from consensus and a buy-in from both Darien staff and parents.Outside Consultant ContractsThe decision to cancel or reduce outside contracts, and actions taken that encouraged another consultant to terminate a contract, resulted in changes to student services that were conditioned on these circumstances rather than student IEPs designed by PPTs.OT ContractThe February RC-24 Special Education Proposed Budget for 2013-14 included an expectation that the contractual OT account would be reduced from $755,000 to $651,794. During negotiations with the OT private agency, Dr. Osypuk learned that the district’s OT services varied significantly from districts with similar demographics. According to the agency’s representative:The workload time requested by Darien has historically included a significant amount of ‘team time’ and additional time to support students within their general education environment. Darien has historically utilized a greater number of OT service hours than other districts in our geographic are of Lower Fairfield County, CT. As an example, and by way of comparison for the 2011-12 school year: Comparison of Darien & Greenwich OT ServicesDistrictTotal Number of DPS StudentsTotal Number of Students with IEPsNumber of OTRPositions (FTE)Darien4,8205417 Full time OT’sGreenwich8,8429156 Full time OT’sAccording to the representative, it is hard to do a direct comparison of service hours because different districts with whom the agency work seek tailored expertise, programming and staffing and the compliment of student complexities is often different.? Based on data and the information provided by the OT agency’s representative, there is reason to believe that it was reasonable for Dr. Osypuk to consider a change in the configuration of OT services. However, the process used to facilitate this change was based on ones that ignored the PPT meeting process with respect to directives for: Participation in the PPT meeting that precluded OT attendance absent exceptional circumstances and administrator approved; The prescription that OT consultation be “as needed” as determined by the case manager; The use of a consultation primarily by telephone and/or email, which was considered inappropriate by the agency representative; and An assumption that IEP-related consultation times would be eliminated at the expiration of the IEP. Also, there was no evidence of any process or plan in place to notify parents of students receiving OT services of these changes and the meaning of consultation versus direct services; the discussion of changes that occurred at a school meeting with some parents did not meet this condition. Furthermore, it is evident that these measures were used to achieve changes to OT services quickly in order to reduce costs in this area. Darien data shows that OT services dropped from 181 students in 2011-12; to 112 students in 2012-13; and 109 students in the current school year.Consultation for Social/Emotional SupportOn July 26th, Dr. Osypuk emailed a principal indicating that she was “holding off signing any contracts” for two students. Shortly thereafter, the director notified one of the consultants that her contract was being cancelled, even though the IEP specifically named the consultant’s agency as the provider of specific services. At this time, an entirely new team of school-based staff was working with the student. When the consultant notified the parent about the contract termination, the parent notified the superintendent for his possible intervention. In response to his email, Dr. Osypuk reported that she would handle the matter. Upon receiving no satisfaction of her concern, the parent requested a due process hearing. Subsequently, when Dr. Osypuk learned that the implementer referenced in the IEP was the consultant whose contract the director had terminated, Dr. Osypuk agreed (through a dispute resolution meeting held the day before school started) to execute a new contract and the parents withdrew their hearing request. Although Dr. Osypuk had indicated that she was unaware of the connection between the contract provider and the student’s IEP, the district’s prior SLP coordinator reported that in July when she discussed the student with Dr. Osypuk, the name of the consultant and the consultant’s company was shared and that the director had been emailing the consultant at her company’s proprietary email address. If prior to taking these actions, Dr. Osypuk had asked various individuals with knowledge of the student, she would have learned that the consultant was providing social/emotional support, direct instruction, and consultation to the student in question and another student. One of the students had been placed out-of-district several years before, and was emotionally fragile. Because the consultant was the only person who knew the student, she was expected to provide support and training to school staff. Although Dr. Osypuk indicated that she was unaware of the relationship between the consultant and the student’s IEP, there is credible information showing that in July the SLP coordinator had notified the director of the relationship. Even if she had forgotten this information, Dr. Osypuk had communicated with the principal about the students impacted by the termination of the consultant’s contract, and the principal knew or should have known of the IEP specifications, and shared how integral the consultancy was to the students’ IEP-intended services. Finally, by not communicating again with the SLP coordinator, the director did not take steps to ensure she had the necessary background to support her initial termination of the contract and ensure that it did not impact any student’s IEP-designated services. Without the parent’s vigilance and advocacy, the director’s actions would have denied services specified in IEPs.SLP ConsultantOne contract that Dr. Osypuk discussed with a private consultant pertained to a student’s unique progress monitoring needs and involved a relatively small amount of funds ($1700). The discussion addressed the amount of funds required to complete the necessary tasks after some funds were used over the summer. Unable to resolve their disagreement, the consultant terminated the contract. Had the director talked with the SLP coordinator (who had a long-term relationship with the student and the consultant), she would have learned that the consultant’s service had been discounted. Reportedly, if either the SLP coordinator was involved in the communication process with the consultant or Dr. Osypuk had handled the matter with more sensitivity, the consultant would have allowed teachers to use the monitoring protocol that had been developed specially for the student to measure his very small demonstration of progress, regardless of the consultant’s involvement. In this case, the PPT decision that had determined the student’s need for the consultant’s services was thwarted by the director’s actions, which triggered the consultant’s decision to terminate her contract and remove her progress monitoring protocol.4. IEP Changes to Outside PPT/AmendmentConcerns were raised that Darien IEPs have been changed outside of a PPT meeting process or by an amendment meeting IDEA/state requirements. To investigate this issue, I reviewed: CSDE’s September 25, 2013 second letter of findings, which addressed IEP changes outside the PPT/amendment process, information from parents (including IEP and related documents); notes from interviews and focus groups, emails; parent/staff survey responses; and the results of a report produced by Darien’s IEP system vender that provided data regarding IEP changes post finalization outside of the PPT/amendment process. IDEA Standards for Changing/Amending IEPsPrior to IDEA’s reauthorization in 2004, IEPs could only be amended at a PPT meeting that was held according to all mandated procedures, including the participation of all required PPT members. This requirement was modified in 2004 with a provision that now permits IEPs to be amended without a full PPT meeting if the parents and school district representative agree. In other words, a student’s parent and district representative are now allowed to agree not to convene a full PPT meeting for the purposes of making changes, and they can agree to amend IEP contents without a PPT meeting. CSDE has developed a form that is used to document the parent’s agreement to the amendment process, i.e., Agreement to Change an IEP Without Convening a PPT Meeting. When this process is used to amend an IEP, the form is to: include the specific amendments to be made; have attached pages of the IEP that reflect the agreed upon changes; reflect a signed agreement by the parent and school district representative; and have attached a PWN. Neither the IDEA/Connecticut regulation nor written CSDE guidance permit school personnel to change IEPs outside of a full PPT meeting or the described amendment process. This lack of authority applies to changes for any technical or “human error” reasons. As discussed further below, CSDE’s September 25, 2013 letter of findings made a distinction between substantive and technical changes, and found only substantive changes to be noncompliant. Constructive versus Actual ChangesWhile investigating this issue, it became apparent that there are two types of circumstances to which the 4th finding (IEP changes outside the PPT/amendment process) could apply: constructive and actual changes.Constructive Changes. IEPs changed “constructively” occur in two ways: Alignment of PPT Meeting Discussion & IEP Contents. The IEP reflects a component that was changed outside of the PPT/amendment process because the PPT did not discuss the component, and the parent was not provided notice about the change either through IEP-documented minutes, recommendations or PWN. Under this pattern of circumstances, the IEP did not align with the PPT discussion and prior IEP contents.Change by Service Design. IEP-specified services/supports, etc., were not provided by design without input from the PPT process and without notice to the PPT, including the parents. In these circumstances, parents had no notice of intended services because they were not discussed at the PPT or reflected in minutes, recommendations or PWN; or they were different from the most recent IEP contents.Actual Changes. The second circumstance of IEP changes reflect those where an individual with authority to access Darien’s IEP system actually uploads a finalized document, changes qualitative or quantitative information, and refinalizes the IEP even though neither a PPT nor amendment authorized the change. IEP contents changed through either the constructive or actual mode have the same result. IEP services/support for students that their parents expected them to receive because of IEP/prior written notice contents were no longer provided by design. Information gathered during the investigation reflects systemic applications of one of these two circumstances. Parent/Staff SurveyParents and staff have significantly different perceptions of the extent to which IEPs: are changed outside of the PPT/amendment process; and reflect decisions regarding all areas discussed at the PPT meeting. Overall, 26 (30%) parents compared to only 3 (3%) staff members with an opinion (strongly) disagree that services are not changed outside of the PPT process. Similarly, 31 (32%) of parents compared to only 3 (3%) staff members (strongly) disagreed that IEPs reflected discussions and decisions made by PPTs. Both staff and parent responses reflected more (strong) disagreement with a statement that prior notice was given to parents (through PWNs, minutes or recommendations) for services the PPT did not accept: 34 (46%) parents and 11 (19%) staff with an opinion disagreed/strongly disagreed with the statement.Parent/Staff Survey: IEP Changes Made Pursuant to PPT Decisions & DiscussionsConstructive ChangesThe most common circumstance raised by parents regarding concerns about changed IEP services concerned constructive changes made pursuant to one of the two modes described above. Alignment of PPT Meeting Discussion & IEPIn line with the above explanation for factual patterns under this heading, several parents told me that that their children’s IEPs reflected decisions made outside the PPT process because the documents did not include all services from the prior IEP, and the PPT meeting neither included a discussion about the discontinuation of services nor was there any written reflection of their discontinuation in minutes, recommendations, or PWN. A review of documents for each of the identified students showed IEPs with services that were eliminated or decreased from last current IEPs and the changes were not referenced in any of the subsequent IEP notice sections. Contributing FactorsSeveral factors contribute to this pattern. A major factor is that typically PPT members (including parents) have not received a full draft IEP prior to the meeting; and during the meeting they are not using a process where the draft IEP is being edited to reflect decision-making. Even though recommendations are presented orally at the end of the meeting, these do not easily transfer to the details of complex IEP documents. Furthermore, when neither the discussion nor oral recommendations do not reference that prior IEP services are reduced/terminated, the parent’s perception is reinforced that they will be continued on the IEP document to come within five school days. A process that relies on notes to document discussions and guide later completion of a complex IEP is ripe for error and miscommunication. Change by Service DesignAs discussed above under the third finding relating to unlawful predeterminations:Documented directives required IEPs to reflect supports for personnel, e.g., AT, OT, paraprofessional, etc.) to be provided on an “as needed” basis, and in some cases written emails indicated that support written on the IEP with a specific frequency could be provided “as needed.”The roles of special education/related services personnel were changed to exclude the provision of IEP-reflected services prior to holding any PPT meeting to consider such a change in service, or any authorized amendment reflecting parent agreement to the change.Several service providers were told to group their students without due regard to the appropriateness of the groupings or IEP-specification of group or 1:1 services. Outside consultant contracts were terminated or reduced without due regard to IEPs of students and their teachers who relied on the consultant support.In all of these areas, IEP-specified services/supports, etc., were not provided by design and reflected IEP service changes that were not intended by PPTs or were made through the authorized amendment process. Furthermore, they reflected changes that were designed and implemented without proper notice to parents.CSDE FindingsIn its second letter of findings, and its sample review of about 100 IEPs, CSDE was able to determine that DPS made changes to IEPs in the following areas after they were finalized. These changes were identifiable because in the district’s IEP system they appear in red, and each change is tagged with a time and date of change, and the system user’s name. Reason for meeting;PPT recommendations;Content of meeting summaryMost recent evaluationNext annual review dateNext projected meeting date;Next reevaluation dateDistrict assessment accommodationsBehavior intervention strategiesSupports to school personnelLength of school yearTime with nondisabled peersResponsible staffImplementer titleTransition services; andService start/end datesHowever, the agency was unable to view in the IEP system any details behind these changes, and they were not able to ascertain the extent of each change and determine if the change was technical or substantive in nature. CSDE found, however, that based on its review of documentation submitted for its administrative complaint process DPS made IEP changes outside the PPT/amendment process. These changes appear to be of a constructive nature as they pertained to a newly finalized IEP (pursuant to a PPT meeting) with services that were reduced from the prior IEP, and the reduced services were not specified in minutes, recommendations, or the PWN. In this regard, the parents received no notice of the changes; the changes, therefore, were made outside of the PPT process. Given CSDE’s findings and the distinction it provided between technical and substantive findings, Connecticut’s special education administrator organization (ConnCASE organization) wrote to CSDE with their concern that the state agency’s distinctions are not clear and leave room for interpretation. As a result, the organization has asked for more clarification and guidance on this matter. Actual ChangesAccording to CSDE, the IDEA regulation does not differentiate between technical edits and substantive changes. However, the agency’s letter to Darien states that CSDE recognizes a distinction between the two for compliance purposes:The CSDE considers a technical edit to be a change that does not alter the substance of the IEP or services to the child. Technical edits may be used to correct minor clerical errors such as misspelling. A substantive change is one that alters the substance of the IEP or services to the child, for example, changing the content of a student’s goals/objectives. Substantive changes may be made only by a PPT or through an IEP amendment. According to my October 22, 2013 conversation with a representative from CSDE’s Bureau of Data Collection, Research and Evaluation (BDCRE), special education directors have received training by BDCRE personnel about technical IEP changes that may be made to address "human error."? SEDAC Upload & State AuditTwo circumstances that occurred in early July and October caused Dr. Osypuk to make actual changes in student IEPs after they were finalized. She made these changes to address what she considered to be “human error” and not substantive changes concerning services to students. SEDAC AuditDuring the 2011-12 school year, BDCRE randomly selected Darien for participation in CSDE’s Desk Audit System for SEDAC. The agency’s July 9th report found that Darien had inconsistent data reporting accuracy; however, the district’s data did “…not demonstrate a systemic failure to report and/or follow SEDAC reporting directions/guidelines. As a result, … the district did not receive a finding of noncompliance for [State Performance Plan] Indicator 10.” To address the inconsistent data reporting accuracy, Darien was ordered to receive technical assistance from CSDE and provide evidence of staff training by September 15th regarding the accurate and thorough completion of IEPs. CSDE indicated that it would close out the audit upon receipt of evidence that staff training had occurred. Representatives of BDCRE informed me that the SEDAC audit involved a paper review of 25 IEPs, and a comparison of them to the same IEPs in the district’s electronic IEP system. Dr. Osypuk was given notice of the specific errors identified; and she was told to consider the type of errors uncovered, determine whether other IEPs have similar errors, and to follow up with corrective action. Of the 25 IEPs reviewed, 13 had errors and SEDAC data did not match consistently information in the paper IEPs. According to the BDCRE representative, part of this process included a determination of whether any of the data were errors and could be corrected, or whether the data reflected noncompliant IEPs. In this respect, noncompliance referred to untimely completed initial evaluations and annual reviews. The timeliness of annual reviews was of particular concern for the 2011-12 school year because OSEP had notified CSDE that the interruption of education caused by Hurricane Sandy would not excuse any untimely actions; and CSDE had clarified that the annual review time frame was 365 calendar days from the last initial/annual IEP irrespective of weekends or holidays. Dr. Osypuk explained that during her investigation to determine why CSDE had found so many errors in the Darien audit, she discovered that numerous persons were finalizing IEPs (including secretaries), and many of them had little understanding of the required timelines and the many different cells of an IEP with a potential for data-entry error. As a first step, the director changed the IEP finalization process to permit only the special education administrators and one special education department head to perform this task. She believed that if only those with the greatest understanding of the IEP process finalized IEPs, then it would be more likely that clerical errors would be corrected prior to finalization. However, errors continued to be identified after the IEP was finalized. In addition, as further described below, Dr. Osypuk used the IEP system to identify students with IEPs having technical errors and changed information to be correct; parents were not notified of these changes.SEDAC Upload & October 12th ReportingAll IEPs entered into the district’s IEP system must be uploaded into the state’s SEDAC system to facilitate mandated state and federal reporting requirements. When Dr. Osypuk initiated this process in October 2012, the system’s electronic error checks revealed over 100+ records with 200+ errors. Given DPS’s recent CSDE finding of “inconsistent accuracy of reporting," the director reviewed each of the identified student records in the district’s IEP system to identify the basis for the errors, and whether they reflected data entry mistakes or a “real” untimely triennial or annual review time frame. Dr. Osypuk corrected the technical errors she found, and did not notify parents of the changes.As discussed in more detail below, although the IEP system has a validation process to identify errors that must be corrected before a student’s IEP can be finalized the errors identified are not inclusive of all the errors SEDAC identifies through its validation process. This second validation process occurs when IEPs are uploaded into the state system. Notice to ParentsDr. Osypuk indicated that she did not believe it was necessary to notify parents of IEP corrections relating to the SEDAC upload process because the corrections did not impact student services. This understanding was based on discussions with Darien special education secretaries, and not based on any discussions with CSDE representatives. Furthermore, the director indicated that the process for notifying parents would have been very time-consuming because of the large number of IEPs with errors.Three of the secretaries confirmed that in the past IEPs changed pursuant to the SEDAC uploading validation process were filed in each student’s “blue book” at the serving school, and in the Central Office file. (If this does not get filed properly at the school, the paper IEP will not be identical to the SEDAC uploaded IEP). The secretaries confirmed that in the past they did not send a copy of the corrected IEP to parents. Types of Changes Made to Finalized IEPIn various documents Dr. Osypuk provided examples of areas in which IEPs were changed in relationship to the audit and SEDAC upload processes, and her explanations for changes to IEPs. These are described below.Incorrect Meeting Purposes. There were several IEPs that had incorrect meeting purposes.Some IEPs were identified as completed in an untimely manner because the reason for the meeting was for a purpose other than an annual review. However, the IEP minutes indicated that the meeting was actually an annual review. In these cases, the director corrected the meeting reason to “Annual Review,” and corrected the related annual review and next annual review dates in the IEP system. These corrections were made to enable staff to easily identify the last annual review date without having to open each document, and to facilitate notice of future annual review meeting dates. For other IEPs, staff had checked off “Review Evaluation/Reevaluation” as the meeting reason when the meeting was not held for this purpose; instead they were held to review an interim evaluation that was conducted by either the district or obtained by a parent. This incorrect date had then been used as the most recent evaluation date and the basis for the next reevaluation date. In the same manner described above, the director corrected the meeting reasons and the other referenced dates. Incorrect Next Annual Review. In several IEPs, staff calculated the next annual review date from the identified Implementation date or from the next projected meeting date, instead of from the annual review meeting date. Incorrect Next Annual and Next Triennial Dates. Staff incorrectly changed next annual review and triennial due dates to a school days instead of the correct calendar dates. Based on CSDE’s reminder that these dates are to be calculated based on calendar days, the director corrected the dates in error to reflect accurate dates. This correction enabled new IEP records to carry over correct next annual review dates and create an opportunity for timely annual reviews. Time with Nondisabled Peers (TWNDP). In some IEPs data was entered for “0” total special education hours/week even though data in other sections of the IEP reflected contradictory information. The electronic function for calculating TWNDP would show a “0” outcome in this circumstance and when multiple metrics were entered in the service grid (e.g., 3 hours/week; 30 minutes; one hour per eight-day cycle; etc.) The director used other information in the IEP (minutes, recommendations, PWN) to enter in the service grid correct data and/or changed data to a common metric (e.g., hours/week). She then either used the auto-calculation function to redetermine TWNDP or calculated TWNDP manually, and then entered the correct information in SEDAC. In either case, Dr. Osypuk asserted that the actual time the student was to receive services in the various educational settings remained the same. Exit Dates. Reportedly, the IEP system will not permit a document to be finalized if the student’s exit date reflects a date after the meeting date. This edit check prevents a future exit date taking into account the mandatory delay in IEP implementation to provide prior PWN wait requirements. In this case, the document must be finalized with the wrong exit date and then finalized again with the correct date. Multiple Annual Review DatesAlthough reasonable minds may disagree regarding the extent to which the above examples constitute technical changes, Dr. Osypuk provided a rationale that is not reasonable for one set of changes she made. She wrote that these changes involved a few students who had annual review meetings that required several sessions over more than one day to complete. In these circumstances, staff correctly calculated the next annual review date based on the final annual review meeting date. The validation process tagged these annual reviews as “late” because the IEP was finalized more than one calendar year from the last annual review date. For these students, the director wrote that she changed the annual review meeting date from the final to the first annual review meeting date “… because the intent was to have completed the Annual Review during that first meeting, but due to time constraints this did not happen.” However, the relevant date of a multi-day annual review meeting is not the first but the final meeting date. As the director acknowledged, it is possible that the parents of children with IEPs changed in this manner may believe that the next annual review is based on the final and not the first date of the annual review meeting. Sufficiency of Edit Checks Available on IEP SystemSeveral of the illustrations used by Dr. Osypuk to communicate the type of changes she made that resulted from “human error” reflect data elements that a more robust electronic edit check could address in an IEP system so that more errors are corrected before a student’s IEP is finalized for the first time. For example, cells for entering service hours/week could be configured to only permit entry with a common format; this would ensure that TWNDP is calculated correctly. Additional edit checks could be set based on established parameters for expected dates/year; dates could be migrated or calculated from “like” fields; and dates could be updated automatically based on calendar year calculations. Overall, to the maximum extent possible, internal data could be used in “smart” ways to ensure that: data-entry is internally consistent with each other; alerts are issued when data does not appear to be entered correctly; and meeting purposes are logical based on internal logarithms. These and other processes would significantly reduce the type of errors referred to above. Moreover, the questionable complexity of the current system is best described by the following example that was found through the IEP system vendor’s audit report for a student’s 2012-13 IEP with autism inclusion consultative services that had been deleted and finalized without a PPT meeting or amendment. The follow-up investigation revealed the following chronology, and several procedurally cumbersome action steps that are italicized: On October 19, 2013, Dr. Osypuk notified staff that the autism inclusion specialist resigned and her position would not be filled. The director informed the special education administrator (secondary) that the director would notify the parents of students affected by the resignation, i.e., those with IEP-specified autism inclusion consultation, and discuss with them a possible amendment to the IEP. During the winter,?the assistant director believed that this discussion had taken place and she created a draft amendment document (outside the PPT process) that reflected the removal of autism inclusion consultation from the IEP.?During a subsequent conversation about the proposed amendment, the parent informed the administrator that there had been no prior discussion with the director and that the parent would not agree to the proposed amendment change. In March 2013, the case manager was preparing for the student's annual review but found that she could not create a new draft IEP while the draft amendment remained open (because it had not been approved by the parent). When notified about this circumstance, the administrator believed she had no other option other than to finalize the unsigned draft, which then permitted the creation of a new draft IEP. ?The finalization of the draft IEP amendment reflected a service that was removed from the IEP through an unauthorized amendment. This example illustrates also the impact of Dr. Osypuk’s early 2011-12 school year decisions for special education staff role changes prior to any PPT meetings or other discussion with parents. IEP System AuditAs mentioned above, a request was granted for the district’s electronic IEP vender to develop a computer program to compare for every student receiving special education services all IEP documents completed in 2012-13 to the previous school year’s 2011-12 document, and to identify IEPs with any 2012-2013 changes after they were finalized. The audit included the same process of comparison for changes involving supports to personnel. The vender produced two Excel reports. The first report, which included all special education service changes, had 18,415 lines of data; many of the data lines related to background information and not an IEP change; as many as 68 lines or more applied to a single student. The second report, which included all changes related to support to personnel, had 5,149 lines; also many lines applied to a single student. Neither report provided a total of individual students with data that appeared on each report, the number of changes per student; or the number of all total changes.Because of the complexity and density of the first report, it was not possible to identify any specific areas of concern. The second report, however, included numerous examples of support for school personnel that appeared to be reduced or increased in subsequent finalized IEPs. As illustrated by the example above concerning the IEP with an amendment (without parent agreement) that was finalized solely to draft a new IEP, determining the extent to which any of the IEPs reflect a constructive change without any impact or reflect an actual change in service requires further review. This review will take place in the next week or two.SUMMARY: Actual IEP ChangesIn my experience, I have not been aware of any jurisdiction that has allowed IEPs to be changed outside of IDEA’s IEP development or amendment process. While this circumstance may exist elsewhere, I have been unable to find anything in writing from typical sources, e.g., U.S. Department of Education guidance, references in the nation’s major special education reporting systems, or discussion with colleagues across the nation. My written conversation with another vendor for three IEP systems that reportedly supports about 20% of the nation’s students with IEPs revealed that none of the systems allow for any change after an IEP is finalized. Going forward, Dr. Osypuk indicated that until CSDE issues clear guidance on the difference between a substantive and technical change and relevant procedures, the special education department would ensure that any IEP changes be made through a PPT or IEP amendment. Technical versus Substantive Changes Are Not ObviousThe information above illustrates that technical versus substantial changes are not readily obvious, and there is likely to be reasonable disagreement about the category that applies to different types of changes. In any regard, Dr. Osypuk’s decision to not provide parents with any notice of IEP changes made through the SEDAC audit or SEDAC upload process is inexcusable. Even though Darien personnel had not notified parents of changes in the past, a telephone call to CDSE representatives would have revealed their understanding that personnel must always give a parent notice of any IEP change regardless of its characterization as technical or substantive, the or amount of time and effort required. In hindsight, Dr. Osypuk indicated that she wished she had taken the time to notify parents as it may have avoided parents thinking that substantive changes were made. Insufficient Electronic Edit ChecksFurthermore, although Dr. Osypuk had changed the finalization process to rely solely on special education administrators and one department head, she did not pursue action to initiate changes to the IEP operating system so it would have the most aggressive internal edit checks possible to maximize error alerts and facilitate correction as part of the IEP’s initial validation process. While that action may have had to be coordinated with other school districts using the same vender or initiated independently through a consideration of other options available, such a front-end approach would have most successfully reduced SEDAC update errors on the backend. In addition, it would have enabled case managers to finalize their own documents because of a higher confidence of fidelity and would have supported their accountability for completing the IEP and getting a copy to parents in a timely manner. 5. Data ReportingThe last finding addresses improper/unlawful activity regarding data reported to CSDE and/or the U.S. Department of Education. Several issues were considered in this regard. First, as found above, Darien’s use of data for SEDAC reporting did not follow agency (and IDEA) requirements pertaining to parent notice about IEP changes, even if made to correct technical errors; the basis of this data is used by CSDE to report required data to the federal government. Given this lack of notice, SEDAC reporting to CSDE included data that was entered in an improper or lawful manner. This issue is referred to CSDE for its review and any follow-up that may be required. Second, there is a potential that sufficient documentation did not exist or was not maintained to support Darien’s request for 2012-13 reimbursement under the Excess Cost Reimbursement Grant. SEDAC ReportingCSDE requires school districts to submit timely and accurate data for all areas CSDE must rely on to report data to the U.S. Department of Education for the State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report. For this compliance activity, states are required to submit 100% timely and accurate data to the federal agency. CSDE uses SEDAC reporting to obtain this information from school districts. In addition to its electronic validation process that is used at the time that districts upload SEDAC data, CSDE departments conduct periodic audits to ensure that all data entered in SEDAC is accurate and matches paper copies of student IEPs. As discussed above Darien’s reporting of SEDAC data has been fraught with errors. Given the information found above (Finding 4) –that SEDAC data was changed to correct technical errors without any notice to parents – the reported data was not based on proper and lawful processes. This issue is referred to CSDE for further review and any follow-up that may be requiredDocumentation of Excess CostsDuring the course of this investigation, a variety of issues surfaced regarding the documentation Darien used as the basis for its submission of special education expenses to CSDE for the Excess Cost Reimbursement Grant. Generally, there is no obvious evidence of a system in place to track actual services provided to students and to maintain all relevant documentation of services provided (other than services by contractual sources). Based on interviews, it appears that service provider caseloads developed during the beginning of the year are projected for the entire school year, and there is no apparent evidence that notice is required to be/or is provided to responsible personnel if the caseloads change during the year. Concerns about this issue arose, for example, when: IEP services were being changed from a specific frequency to “as needed;” personnel delivering IEP-related services had their roles changed or they left the school system; and the size of student groups changed from individual to group, and sizes of groups changed during the year. Based on these concerns, approval was granted for the investigation to include a data request for all excess cost reimbursement submissions. A review of these submissions resulted in additional questions or concerns regarding the accuracy of the submissions for reimbursement. Information from district support personnel about documentation maintained and processes followed for excess cost reimbursement submissions?were reviewed. Based on this review, the examples below include but are not limited to concerns that appropriate documentation may not be available to support excess cost billing statements for Darien employees in based on the following circumstances: Psychological service costs for an employee may have exceeded the employee’s date of leave (shortly after the beginning of the school year); Inclusion service costs may have exceeded the date an employee that left the district in the fall of 2012; Feeding/swallowing services for students may have been provided by different personnel or possibly discontinued; AT consultation services may have been based on a caseload of projected services rather than services provided, and based on IEPs with an “as needed” and unknown frequency;SLP group-based services may not have been based on adjustments that occurred during the school year; andBCBA consultation services may not have been based on documentation of actual services provided and that was maintained. This information was sufficient to support initial concerns regarding the basis of excess cost submissions to CSDE. On October 24, 2013, I informed BOE counsel of these concerns and requested that the concerns be forwarded to the BOE’s auditors. Later that day, BOE counsel contacted the auditors and reported the concerns for their review.?On October 31st, the Darien Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance held a special session to order an audit of the town’s special education budget regarding possible errors in the reporting for special education expenses submitted to the State of Connecticut for the Excess Cost Reimbursement Grant.III. RECOMMENDATIONSThe following recommendations are offered to address the above-referenced findings and to support an effective and efficient administration and operation of services for students with disabilities in the Darien Public Schools. 1. Complete an SRBI Standard Operating Procedure Manual.Contents. Ensure the SOPM includes expected practices for the following areas: reporting of student progress; standards for the frequency of data collection for various tiers of support and purposes; meaningful communication of student interventions (including the tier of support) and student progress with parents, including the frequency and method of sharing information; and standards for determining when student progress has not been sufficient given the time and interventions attempted and related consideration for Section 504 or special education evaluations. In addition, clarify that a student may be referred for an evaluation as soon as there is a suspicion that the student may be eligible to receive Section 504 or special education services.Progress Monitoring. For progress monitoring, consider the following CSDE guidance: During progress monitoring, educators should present data to families in both graphic and numerical formats they can readily understand and should elicit families’ views about the student’s progress or lack thereof. Data supplied to families should also reference expected grade level benchmarks so parents may better understand where their child’s skills are in relation to grade- level expectations. Families should feel they are part of, not only the recipients of, the monitoring of a student’s progressWeb-based Application. Use a web-based application so that the SOPM can be easily updated, include all relevant forms, and provide links to other relevant websites, literature, etc., relevant to SRBI. Post the webpage on the DPS website so that it is publicly accessible. Training. Provide ongoing training opportunities for staff; work with parent organizations to provide training for parents. Differentiate the training based on different levels of knowledge. Accountability. Establish a mechanism for ensuring that expected SRBI standards are implemented with fidelity.Data System. Consider investing in a data system that would support the implementation of SRBI. To the extent possible, integrate data with Section 504 and special education data systems.2. Complete a Section 504 Standard Operating Procedural Manual.Contents. Ensure the SOPM includes expected practices for all relevant areas. Include procedures to follow for DPS staff to identify students who may meet the Section 504 eligibility criteria. Clarify that when a parent refers a child for Section 504 services and there is reason to suspect the child has a disability, the district is responsible for all aspects of the student’s assessment and the parent is not obligated to provide any medical information. Web-based Application. Use a web-based application so that the SOPM can be easily updated, includes all relevant forms, and provides links to other relevant websites and information. Post the webpage on the DPS website so that it is publicly accessible. Training. Provide ongoing training opportunities for staff; work with parent organizations to provide training for parents. Differentiate the training based on different levels of knowledge.Accountability. Establish a mechanism for ensuring that expected Section 504 standards are implemented with fidelity.Data System. Consider investing in a data system that would enable support the implementation of Section 504. To the extent possible, integrate data with SRBI and special education data systems.3. Complete a Special Education Standard Operating Procedures Manual.Contents. Ensure the SOPM includes compliant and appropriate standards and guidance, including the following areas:Substantive Areas of InformationSpecially Designed Instruction.* Immediately clarify the definition and application of specially designed instruction.Support for Personnel.* Immediately clarify that the need for support for personnel in IEPs must reference a specific frequency (e.g., hours per month), location and duration; include clarification that the term “as needed” is not to be used to denote the frequency of services for support for personnel.Study Skills.* Immediately clarify that the area of study skills may be an appropriate annual goal for a student with PLEPs reflecting this need, and may be considered to be a specially designed instruction. Social/Emotional Learning.* Immediately clarify that any personnel with appropriate qualifications may support a student in the area of social emotional learning, using an inclusive rather than exclusive approach. This broader approach recognizes that social/emotional issues impact many areas of a student’s performance and that an integrated and coordinated methodology is more likely to support a student in his/her different environments and learning situations. Different qualified personnel may be designated as “responsible staff” and/or “service implementer,” (depending on the student and personnel schedules/caseloads) to provide instruction/interventions and monitor student progress. It should be clear that these roles do not exclude the involvement of any PPT member when developing goals/objectives.Other Health Impaired – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (OHI-ADHD).* Include criteria for OHI-ADHD, including information from the CSDE Report on ADHD and other best practice documents. Immediately clarify that the criteria includes professional judgment. Developmental Delay (DD).* Include criteria for DD, taking into consideration best practice literature. Immediately clarify that a student’s eligibility for DD includes professional judgment. Adaptive Physical Education (APE).* Include criteria for APE, including information from CSDE’s APE Guidelines. Immediately clarify that a student’s eligibility for APE is not conditioned on a student receiving physical therapy. Extended School Year (ESY).* Include criteria for ESY, including information from CSDE’s ESY Topical Brief and the following: Time Frame for Eligibility. Immediately establish appropriate time frames for determining ESY eligibility to ensure they will be completed earlier in the year than at or soon before the end of the school year, and in sufficient time to enable a parent to address any concerns through a dispute resolution process.Service Configuration. Ensure that the configuration meets the requirements of IDEA, which prohibits any unilateral limitation of the type, amount or duration of services. Independent Education Evaluations (IEE). Include procedures for reviewing parent requests for IEEs, including reasonable time frames for the review, and criteria for funding IEEs approved at public expense. Include guidance from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Program (OSEP).Individualized Services. Include standards for considering a student’s need for individualized services, including but not limited to any benefits of 1:1 instruction; the trajectory of learning anticipated as a result of this intensive model; whether the anticipated growth is likely to facilitate a student’s increased independence and ability to interact positively with peers; and the benefits of more inclusive service models.Speech/language Impairment.* Include criteria that allows for a combination of scores and description of student characteristics that would help to guide consistent and appropriate eligibility and service decision-making. Immediately clarify that criteria includes professional judgment.Dual Certified Teachers.* Immediately clarify that a general educator (who is also a certified special educator) who is teaching a general education class may not be considered to be the special educator referenced in an IEP when paraprofessional support is required when not with a special educator, etc. Progress Monitoring. Establish principles for collecting and sharing meaningful student progress monitoring data with parents, including data used for IDEA progress report and any local guidance for more frequent sharing of student progress with parents.Discipline Procedural Safeguards.* Include an explanation of all IDEA procedural safeguards; and state requirements pertaining to seclusion and restraint. Immediately clarify that any student with an IEP suspended for more than 10 days in a school year must continue to receive educational services as specified in the rmation about Managing PPT Meetings & CommunicationPurpose of Meetings Held Prior To PPT.* Immediately Clarify the use of preparatory activities for DPS personnel to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later PPT meeting; clarify that although DPS personnel may form opinions and compile reports prior to PPT/IEP meetings, the personnel must be willing to listen to parents; come to the meeting with suggestions and open minds, and not a required course of action; that meaningful participation includes a parent’s opportunity to discuss the proposed IEP with team members who earnestly consider the parent’s concerns and also includes the parent’s engagement in that discussion; and that when services are being considered beyond those normally available at a school that an individual with the authority to commit those resources is to be invited to participate in the PPT meeting.Building Consensus. Include guidance based on best practices literature regarding how chairpersons are to facilitate PPTs in a way that encourages active discussion and builds consensus. Attendance at PPT Meetings.* Immediately clarify that invitations to attend PPT meetings shall include any personnel having relevant information for the PPT’s consideration, and that no personnel area is to be categorically excluded from consideration for attendance. Parent Notice.* Immediately clarify that parents may be asked but are not required to provide advance notice of any individuals (including attorneys, advocates or outside evaluators) they choose to invite to the meeting with knowledge or special expertise regarding the student in question. Number of PPT Meetings Per Year.* Immediately clarify that the number of PPT meetings held for a student is based on the needs of each student, and include standards for this consideration.Parent/School Communication. Establish principles for determining appropriate communication between school staff and parents, including the reporting of student progress in a meaningful manner; sharing concerns; use of communication logs, meetings, emails, telephone calls, etc. Paraprofessional/Parent Communication. Establish guidance to consider when establishing parameters for paraprofessional/parent communication. Process for Developing SOPMInput. When developing the SOPM, consider hiring a consultant with the knowledge, expertise, and time available to support the completion of an expeditious draft. Make the process collaborative by involving DPS staff and others in the community with areas of expertise who can contribute relevant information. Once the draft is completed, have a group of DPS staff provide feedback; obtain BOE counsel legal review; and at an appropriate time ask a small group of parent attorney(s)/advocate(s) to give thoughtful feedback. Web-based Application. Use a web-based application so that the SOPM can be easily updated, includes all relevant forms, and provides links to other relevant websites and information, e.g., training videos, etc. Post the webpage on DPS’s website so that it is publicly accessible. Immediate Memorandum. Draft a memorandum addressing all the areas referenced above that requires immediate clarification; other areas may be included as appropriate. Distribute the document and post it on DPS’s website; and communicate its information based on an established plan. The term immediate means within one month of the date of this report.Staff Training. With a small group of DPS representatives and the consultant if one is hired to draft the SOPM, develop a plan for John Verre’s review, including the parameters of differentiated training necessary for all district education administrators, school administrators, special educators, related services staff, paraprofessionals, etc., to carry out their roles and responsibilities. As part of the plan, include the time necessary for and the contents of differentiated training, and resources required. Have Mr. Verre consult with the superintendent to receive feedback about the plan and present it to the BOE for approval.Parent Training. Collaboratively with parent representatives, plan for the provision of coordinated and on-going information for parents based on the representatives’ prioritized concerns. Differentiate the training to be responsive to audience’s different levels of knowledge.Legal Review. Ensure that all relevant documents have legal review.Accountability. Establish a mechanism for ensuring that expected IDEA/state standards are implemented with fidelity.4. Establish guidance for the facilitation of PPT meetings and development of IEPs.Chairperson & District Representative Roles. Consider establishing different roles for chairing PPTs and for district representatives; and having the chairperson be an IEP facilitator rather than a “decider.” This would enable the district representative to listen to the conversation and be an active participant. Consider training all potential chairpersons in the IEP facilitation process, which focuses on consensus building. Use of Draft IEPs. Consider establishing a procedure whereby fully drafted IEPs are shared with parents before PPTs and are edited throughout the discussion. If this is not done electronically with an LCD projector, the editing can be done on a paper document for later input into the IEP system. The “official” edited document can be copied and shared with the parent at the end of the PPT, allowing for any concerns to be raised immediately. Because this process would enable more individuals to catch errors on the draft IEP, consider having appropriate school personnel finalize the IEP document.Notes & Draft Document. Consider assigning a PPT participant who also does not have a primary participant role to take notes; and assign the most appropriate person to edit the IEP document during the meeting. 5. For the 2014-15 school year, establish a plan for timely and appropriate scheduling and notice to parents.Personnel. Address related services personnel and paraprofessional schedules.Notice to Parents. Provide notice to parents at the same time that parents are typically given notice of their children’s general education teachers.Allocation of Paraprofessionals. Establish parameters for ensuring the appropriate allocation of paraprofessionals, including IEP-referenced needs, and that the process is followed with fidelity.6. Engage in a conversation about how all schools can use universal design for learning (UDL) principles and enhance supports for students to become highly effective inclusive schools. Collaborative Discussions. Consider ways in which collaborative discussions with parents and school representatives can identify challenges to highly effective inclusive practices, including school-based challenges, and processes for addressing them proactively and effectively. Consider the use of students to help identify challenges and areas for improvement. Observations & Learning. Consider visiting highly effective schools, including the three in Boston described in Dr. Tom Hehir’s book, Effective Inclusive Schools: Designing Successful Schoolwide Programs, and through observations, information in this book, as well as other information, use learning to inform the collaborative discussions referenced above.Enhancing In-School Options for Students Currently Out-Placed. In collaboration with parents, consider the services and supports that would need to be in place to enable students to return to Darien schools for their education, and to enhance the effectiveness of Darien schools for students who would otherwise be out-placed. In this process, consider any needs for enhanced specialized reading and social/emotional supports.7. Identify students who were potentially impacted by the various directives and changes in personnel roles for appropriate follow-up action.Identification of Students & Follow-Up. Use student data and school personnel to identify the following: students terminated from or assessed but not eligible for APE; students not eligible/terminated in the area of OHI-ADHD; students evaluated and not eligible for DD; students not eligible for ESY; students with 1:1 services that were terminated; and students terminated from feeding/swallowing support. Notify parents of the relevant issue and invite them to discuss any concerns with a district or school representative who can help them to determine any course of action that may be appropriate. Support for Personnel. Identify all students with supports for personnel having an “as needed” frequency; in a coordinated manner, reconvene PPTs to consider any continuing need for the service and the specification of frequency if the service continues to be appropriate for personnel supporting the student.Assessment of Personnel Roles. Reconsider appropriate roles for the AT coordinator, facilitating effective inclusive support, specialized reading support, and speech/language coordination; take any appropriate follow-up action.8.Review and ensure that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) procedures are effective and fully implemented in a timely manner. Ensure that:Progress Monitoring Records. All education records, including electronic and paper documents pertaining to SRBI, other progress monitoring results, evaluation and other assessment data, etc., are maintained in a manner consistent with relevant federal and state requirements.Search Functions. Electronic and manual search functions operate in a manner that enables the retrievers of information to identify and collect all relevant education records in response to a FERPA or document request under the state record retention schedule (state record law). Maintenance of Records. All DPS employees have knowledge of and are accountable for the maintenance of records and documents in the manner required by FERPA/state record law, and are organized in a manner that allows them to be retrieved when required to fully respond to a FERPA/FOIA request. Parent Consent. All DPS employees have knowledge of and are accountable for releasing personally identifiable education records only with prior parent consent unless the release is authorized by and complies with FERPA/state record law provisions. 9. Take steps to improve edit checks for electronic IEPs, access to data reports, and service tracking software.Edit Checks. Engage in discussions to determine the extent to which Darien’s current IEP system can be enhanced to include “smart” edit checks so they are aligned with SEDAC upload edit checks to substantially reduce entry and reporting errors. Data Reports. Explore improved access to data reports by school and district personnel to improve the management of and accountability for special education services, including: timely finalization of IEPs and their provision to parents within established time frames; timely annual reviews and triennial evaluations; etc. Consider the extent to which software provides notice of dates about to be missed and notice to superiors for assistance and/or intervention. Also consider the extent to which the system can accommodate the monitoring of student performance and other outcomes.Service Tracking. Explore available software used to track the provision of IEP services for use in managing and overseeing the provision of services, and supporting the billing of excess costs. If not satisfied with the extent to which the current IEP system is able to accommodate improvements in these areas then consider other options available, including exploring the capacity of other systems.10.Review and ensure an effective policy and procedure is in place for investigating complaints alleging noncompliance with Section 504 or IDEA. Consider expanding this to complaints about SRBI implementation. AppendicesAppendix A. DocumentsDocuments Cited by CSDE by Finding NumberSpecial Education & Student Services (8/30/12)Clarifying Questions for Persons Chairing PPT [Planning and Placement Team] Meetings (9/24/12) Building Consistency of Sped Practices District Wide (11/6/12)Worksheet for Eligibility under OHI-ADHD [Other Health Impaired – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder] (1/15/13)(PPT) Report of Eligibility for Special Education due to Developmental Delay (2/21/13) Adaptive Physical Education (APE) Eligibility Criteria Under the IDEA (Draft)District Guidance Regarding Requests to Complete Rating Scales from Outside Providers (3/17/13)Parent Requests an IEEProcedures for IEEs (1/28/13)Criteria for Evaluators Conducting Independent Education Evaluations (IEEs) (Draft)Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Darien Special Education [Therapeutic Learning Center] TLC Fact SheetSpecial Education Administrator Meeting (ppt) PPT. Department of Special Education and Student Services ppts (Elementary, Secondary, Preschool) PPT. Department of Special Education and Student Services (General Education Teachers)PPT. Special Education Instructional Aides – ELP: Helping to Foster Student Independence PPT. A Basic Understanding of IDEA (8/15-16/12) Sample IEP Document Special Education Policies and Procedures ManualDocuments Submitted & Not Cited by CSDEADA Amendments Act: Section 504 – Understanding and Application to the Public School Setting Administrator/Secretary Processing Initial Referrals to Sped (10/3/12)Behavior Intervention PlanCSDE IEP Manuals and Forms (Fourth Revision) (3/20/13)E-mail communication from S. Falcone to Administrative Council – to cabinet: completion of behavior rating scales - E-mail communication from S. Falcone to Administrative Council (4/19/13)Functional Behavior Assessment (Draft)How to Run a Pre-Meeting (to administrators) (9/24/12)IEP Direct Dates (1/3/13)Intellectual Disability Eligibility DocumentationLetter to ECS and First Student regarding bus restraint procedures (12/10/12)Letter to parents regarding parents’ right to request meeting to review PPT process PPT Checklist (2/25/13)Procedures for Processing Newly Registered Sped students (3/16/13)Procedures for Processing Students Exiting Special Ed in DarienProcedures for Processing Students Initially Identified by District (1/9/13)RC-24 Special Education Proposed Budget 2013-2014Related Services (Student and Educator Support Services), What is the meaning of “related’?; Guidelines for making effective IEP Decisions (Sharon McCloskey, Director of Constellation School Based Services)Report to the BOE – February 26, 2013 (2/26/13)Section 504 of the ADA Amendments Act (effective 7/1/09): As it Pertains to the Schools (9/24/12)Staff Procedures for Processing Initial Referrals to Sped (10/3/12)Strategy for Success Worksheet and TrackingWorksheet for Determination of Eligibility for Special Education Services under the Classification of Autism Additional DocumentsCT Model Procedures for Special EducationCSDE letters of findings for individual studentsDarien Financial/Budget DataDarien Parent and Board of Education meeting by Theresa C. DeFrancis (10/8-10/13)Darien Professional Development for Staff by Theresa C. DeFrancis (8/22-23/13); for Administrative Retreat (8/15/13)Darien Public Schools SRBI HandbookLetter of concern from a former employee to Stephen FalconeOverview of national and state laws and regulations that have influenced OT school-based practice in the Town of Darien, Dr. Sharon McCloskey, Constellation School Based Therapy (10/13)Parent group complaint & CSDE reports (7/18/13 and 9/25/13) Response of Dr. Deirdre Osypuk to Commissioner Pryor re: CSDE complaint DO response to complaint (6/24/13) Response of Dr. Deirdre Osypuk to Commissioner Pryor re: CSDE complaint (letter was not sent to CSDE, 10/3/13) Response of Dr. Deirdre Osypuk to Steve Fulcane re: CSDE findings (undated, on or after 7/26/13) SEPAC Minutes (7/11/13)Speech/Language MatricesVarious Darien Newspaper ArticlesAppendix B. Data AnalysisThe following types of data was requested and assessed:2005-06 through 2011-12 Annual Progress Report DataTotal number of all enrolled studentsTotal number of all enrolled students by elementary grade level/school, middle school, high school, and placed by DPS in approved nonpublic schoolsTotal number of students with IEPs Total number of students with IEPs by primary disabilityFor 2011-12 and 2012-13, the number of students:Enrolled in DPS With 504 plansReceiving SRBI services at Tiers 2 and 3 (This data was not provided) With IEPs by:Primary disability areaPrimary disability upon exit from special education services Related service or other service area on IEP service gridsTime with nondisabled peersNumber of full time equivalent (FTE) personnel: special education teachers, paraprofessionals, speech/language pathologists, psychologists, social workers, nurses, OTs, PTsOutside contracts and IEEs Appendix C. Issues by Documents & State Findings/RecommendationsCSDE findings reflected by “NC” for noncompliance and “REC” for recommended actions. CSDE wrote that while the report “summarizes some of the particular issues with specific materials, it is meant to be a representative sample of the general areas of concern and is not an exhaustive analysis.” Additional issues I identified are noted with an “X.” 1. Special Education & Student Services2. Clarifying Questions for Persons Chairing PPT Meetings3. Building Consistency of Sped Practices District Wide4. Worksheets5. District Guidance Re: Requests to Complete Rating Scales6. Parent RequestsProcedures for IEEs7. Criteria for IEE Evaluators8. Frequently Asked Questions9. TLC Fact Sheet10 PPT: Sped Administrator Meeting11. 3 PPTs: Dept of Sped/Support12. PPT: Sped/Support (GenEd)13. PPT: Sped Instruct. Aides, ELP14. PPT: Basic Understanding of IDEA15. Sample IEPWhat does disability mean? Would child look disabled…?XXWhat is specialized instruction? What is not specialized?NCNCNCRelated Services: access v benefit (Clarifying Questions)XXSchool- v Clinical-based practice: implies 1:1 service is not school-basedXMore is Better: may be misinterpreted; causes scarce resource inequitiesRec RecPPT Agenda – missing componentsXTeam Meetings: Refrain from writing in IEPNCPPT: United Front: work out differences prior to PPTNCPPT: Chairperson responsibilities exclusive of parental involvementXParents (not in mission)Rec XXParent Meetings: Refrain from writing in IEP NCParents: Excessive services (What to Say When) PPT authorityNCParents: More IEP g/o than proposed (What to Say When) PPT authorNCParents give notice: attorney, record PPT, outside evaluationNCParent right to “reasonable” number PPTs/yearXAdministrative decision when consensus not reached XMinutesXPrior Written NoticeXPLEP: give examplesRecPLEP scores to exclusion of descriptionRec1:1 instruction: questions to askX1:1 Instruction: prior discussion with directorNC1:1 Instruction & inclusion questions (Clarifying Questions)XXAPE: PT requirement, prior discussion w/sped administratorNCAPE draft overly specific worksheet RecADHD overly specific worksheet NCAT Coordinator: consult with AT coordinatorX NCAT Evaluations: prior discussion/sped administratorXAT Consultant: attend PPT only when reporting on evalNCAT: Expensive Equipment: prior discussion w/administratorNCAutism Inclusion Specialist: consult w/specialistXAutism Inclusion Specialist: prior discussion w/administrator NCBC(a)BA: prior discussion w/staffNC BC(a)BA evaluation: prior discussion w/administratorNCConsultation time: refrain from writing specific time in IEP (as needed)NCConsultants (employees or outside): prior discussion w/director NCDevelopmental Delay: overly specific worksheet NCExtended School Year (ESY) NCR-9Extended day; Refrain from writing in IEP NCFeeding/Swallowing Team: no longer have teamXFrequency of ServicesRecAs Needed (support to personnel)XHomebound: direct to director; nurses no longer involved.XIn-home Service: Refrain from writing in IEP NCIEE: What purpose would an outside evaluation serve?XIEE: PPT makes IEE determination NC XIEE: Criteria for evaluators (2a, 4b, 5c)RecIEE: Outside evaluations: prior discussion w/director NCIEE: Outside evaluations: prior discussion w/administratorNCOT: attend PPT only w/sped admin approval; NCOT: Consult “as needed”; CM driven; consult by phone/email; ‘til IEP expiresXPara Support (as needed)XPara 1:1 Support: prior discussion with administratorNCRating Scales – Completed only when PPT recommends NCSocial Thinking: Explanation of efforts to find overlap w/Second Steps”XSLP Coord consultation: prior discussion with administrator NCTVI/THI: prior discussion w/staff NC THI/TVI: prior discussion with THI/TVIXTHI/VHI: attend PPT only when providing direct servicesNCTHI/TVI: prior discussion with specialistNCTLC (inclusion standard; vision for TLC) *Inclusion vision XRecDiscipline: No mention of services>10 daysX ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download